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

Are we as hobbyist UAS users in the clear for now? can we jump for joy? or to soon?

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

Are we as hobbyist UAS users in the clear for now? can we jump for joy? or to soon?

Old 07-18-2016, 07:46 AM
  #401  
TimJ
 
TimJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
The FAA would rather that they send their drones above 500 feet once they get their issues worked out for drones flying with the full scale airplanes. But probably not till after 2020. IMO drones are not workable for door to door delivery, But may be from warehouse to warehouse.
The FAA did very recently perform some test flying UAS and full size aircraft. It would seem to me that as long as the AMA is around, we modelers shouldn't loose our ability to fly models. Much like the EAA did for general aviation. So I think you might be correct. Airspace would have to be reclassified in some manor to do what amazon wants.
Old 07-18-2016, 07:51 AM
  #402  
TimJ
 
TimJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon
Nothing new here. The same thing happened with Amateur Radio decades ago. The commercial interests lobbied the FCC for the frequencies set aside for Amateur Radio. The ARRL (equivalent of our AMA) worked very diligently fighting the FCC to preserve those frequencies set aside for Amateur Radio. The ARRL now has a dedicated legal defense fund setup specifically for legal actions that could impact amateur radio.
Yeah, if I remember correctly, in order for any organization to take over on a set of frequencies they have to do a study to see if the set of frequencies the organization wants to acquire is actually in use. Then said organization can lobby the FCC for those frequencies (at a price?).
Old 07-18-2016, 09:38 AM
  #403  
H5487
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TimJ
The FAA did very recently perform some test flying UAS and full size aircraft. It would seem to me that as long as the AMA is around, we modelers shouldn't loose our ability to fly models. Much like the EAA did for general aviation. So I think you might be correct. Airspace would have to be reclassified in some manor to do what amazon wants.
Except for the landing and takeoff phases (and perhaps cropdusting and law enforcement ops) full-scale aircraft don't usually operate below 500ft above the highest obstacle in sparsely-occupied areas, 1000ft in congested areas. However, bear in mind that these altitudes were largely established back when accidental contact with an obstacle was the main concern. However, since 9/11, the Dept of Homeland Security has been diligently occupied with preventing a reoccurrence. This includes finding ways to identify potential threats in enough time to react to them. While a drone probably isn't a substantial threat to the airlines or crowds of people on the ground (not yet, anyway), I'm sure Homeland Security would prefer to keep larger (non-hobby) UAVs above 500ft where it is easier to spot and track them, as opposed to closer to the ground where they could be hidden by buildings, trees, etc. And since our models typically fly under 400ft, I can see where they would like to keep us confined to officially-recognized locations such as AMA Club fields.

Before someone posts that I'm predicting doom and gloom for our hobby, please note that I'm only speculating what some in the government would probably LIKE to do with us. The next terrorist attack on the US (and we'd be fools to say it can never happen again!) will determine just how much those DHS planners will get their way.

Harvey

Last edited by H5487; 07-18-2016 at 09:41 AM.
Old 07-18-2016, 09:47 AM
  #404  
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 H5487
Except for the landing and takeoff phases (and perhaps cropdusting and law enforcement ops) full-scale aircraft don't usually operate below 500ft above the highest obstacle in sparsely-occupied areas, 1000ft in congested areas. However, bear in mind that these altitudes were largely established back when accidental contact with an obstacle was the main concern. However, since 9/11, the Dept of Homeland Security has been diligently occupied with preventing a reoccurrence. This includes finding ways to identify potential threats in enough time to react to them. While a drone probably isn't a substantial threat to the airlines or crowds of people on the ground (not yet, anyway), I'm sure Homeland Security would prefer to keep larger (non-hobby) UAVs above 500ft where it is easier to spot and track them, as opposed to closer to the ground where they could be hidden by buildings, trees, etc. And since our models typically fly under 400ft, I can see where they would like to keep us confined to officially-recognized locations such as AMA Club fields.

Before someone posts that I'm predicting doom and gloom for our hobby, please note that I'm only speculating what some in the government would probably LIKE to do with us. The next terrorist attack on the US (and we'd be fools to say it can never happen again!) will determine just how much those DHS planners will get their way.

Harvey
So far terrorists prefer, blowing themselves up in a crowd of people, shooting into crowds of people, flying airliners into buildings, driving trucks into crowds of people, or filling up a rental truck full of explosives and setting it off near a very large building. I don't think there has been any more than a thought about using a model airplane or drone for terrorist attacks. Just not enough payload I guess.
Old 07-18-2016, 10:15 AM
  #405  
H5487
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
I don't think there has been any more than a thought about using a model airplane or drone for terrorist attacks. Just not enough payload I guess.
And that's how AOPA has been able to successfully argue against increased scrutiny and regulations against small GA aircraft. However, remember the story two or three years ago about the engineering student who tried to buy two turbine models for a planned terrorist attack against a government building (either the White House or Congress, I believe)? While I don't remember whether he was a wanna-be terrorist or connected to any of the mainstream terrorist groups, it DOES show that the idea of using model airplanes for an attack is out there.

Harvey
Old 07-18-2016, 10:25 AM
  #406  
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 H5487
And that's how AOPA has been able to successfully argue against increased scrutiny and regulations against small GA aircraft. However, remember the story two or three years ago about the engineering student who tried to buy two turbine models for a planned terrorist attack against a government building (either the White House or Congress, I believe)? While I don't remember whether he was a wanna-be terrorist or connected to any of the mainstream terrorist groups, it DOES show that the idea of using model airplanes for an attack is out there.

Harvey
I believe that was a dude from Mass who was going to use a 70/90 mm ducted fan F-86. Boy did he pick the wrong plane!
Old 07-18-2016, 11:36 AM
  #407  
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 H5487
And that's how AOPA has been able to successfully argue against increased scrutiny and regulations against small GA aircraft. However, remember the story two or three years ago about the engineering student who tried to buy two turbine models for a planned terrorist attack against a government building (either the White House or Congress, I believe)? While I don't remember whether he was a wanna-be terrorist or connected to any of the mainstream terrorist groups, it DOES show that the idea of using model airplanes for an attack is out there.

Harvey
That was the thought I implied.
Old 07-18-2016, 12:01 PM
  #408  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,499
Received 80 Likes on 70 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rcmiket
You must fill out a application for LM status. along with s 4 references and a resume than be approved for your LM status,. If your referring to that on your application you were giving several designations that entirely possible.

Mike
back around 79-80 i applied for CD. was successful, passed the test and was awarded my CD and offered a chance to change my AMA number, which i declined. too many aircraft to redo numbers on.
about 2 years later, my AMA card started showing Leader Member Admin along with the CD. i never applied for it. was later was told a similar story by hoss. the same thing happened to him around the same time frame, although a coupla years ahead of me. we think it was for not ever having a complaint filed about any event we ran, getting all the paperwork turned in correctly and in a reasonable time frame, and for running events correctly.
the scientific was added around 88-90, and it also is something i never applied for. i was told that i was presented for consideration as scientific leader by a group of fliers that promoted me for my work in making Ducted Fan and Turbine model aircraft available to everyday modelers. whatever that means, and i was never told who these folks were.

Last edited by mongo; 07-18-2016 at 12:04 PM. Reason: formatting, date correction
Old 07-18-2016, 12:44 PM
  #409  
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
back around 79-80 i applied for CD. was successful, passed the test and was awarded my CD and offered a chance to change my AMA number, which i declined. too many aircraft to redo numbers on.
about 2 years later, my AMA card started showing Leader Member Admin along with the CD. i never applied for it. was later was told a similar story by hoss. the same thing happened to him around the same time frame, although a coupla years ahead of me. we think it was for not ever having a complaint filed about any event we ran, getting all the paperwork turned in correctly and in a reasonable time frame, and for running events correctly.
the scientific was added around 88-90, and it also is something i never applied for. i was told that i was presented for consideration as scientific leader by a group of fliers that promoted me for my work in making Ducted Fan and Turbine model aircraft available to everyday modelers. whatever that means, and i was never told who these folks were.
Interesting.

More interesting that this apparently was the single thing Hoss didn't complain about....getting a designation without filling out the paperwork! Turning in the event ppwk doesn't get someone a designation, but does get one a discount on dues (another reason for those complaining about the dues increase to get more involved).

Not signing the application form is odd as well as it required a pledge.
Old 07-18-2016, 12:46 PM
  #410  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/l...pplication.pdf
Old 07-18-2016, 07:43 PM
  #411  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,499
Received 80 Likes on 70 Posts
Default

that doc was created on 8 oct 15, modified on XX mar 16.
the apps i signed for other folks seeking leader member stratus back in the 80s was quite different.
only 3 classes, admin, scientific, industrial.
the pledge was several lines shorter, and that entire second paragraph of coordinating with VP stuff was not there.
the pledge was the same as the one for the CD app i filled out, short and to the point.


oh yeah, back then, the CD that actually did the paperwork, correctly, and got it turned in at all, was the exception rather than the rule.

Last edited by mongo; 07-18-2016 at 07:45 PM. Reason: forgot a comment
Old 07-20-2016, 04:32 PM
  #412  
big fred
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Trying really hard to not say "told ya so"

here has been confusion among our members as to whether operations above 400 feet are permitted by the FAA. AMA has remained steadfast that the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Section 336 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act) permits operations above 400 feet if conducted within our safety program requiring the pilot to be an AMA member, to avoid and not interfere with manned aircraft, and to keep the model in visual line of sight of the pilot/observer.

Some of you , whom I will not name, remind me of people on the highway that cannot see in front of the car in front of them to see what is really going on in front of you.
Old 07-20-2016, 04:49 PM
  #413  
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 big fred
Trying really hard to not say "told ya so"

here has been confusion among our members as to whether operations above 400 feet are permitted by the FAA. AMA has remained steadfast that the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Section 336 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act) permits operations above 400 feet if conducted within our safety program requiring the pilot to be an AMA member, to avoid and not interfere with manned aircraft, and to keep the model in visual line of sight of the pilot/observer.

Some of you , whom I will not name, remind me of people on the highway that cannot see in front of the car in front of them to see what is really going on in front of you.
Reminds me of the saying "can't see the forest through the trees". Even more bizzare though is that even when presented with something good, something positive, the naysayers still find a way to turn it into something bad, something horrible even. Because just wait, it might get worse later. We finally get something in writing from the FAA and the usual folks with the usual complaints start right in, oh gee, what's new with that. They couldn't do better? Wow, that's it? Sure, AMA is doing this but only as a way to make more money because....because drones! LoL.
Old 07-21-2016, 04:17 AM
  #414  
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 mongo
back around 79-80 i applied for CD. was successful, passed the test and was awarded my CD and offered a chance to change my AMA number, which i declined. too many aircraft to redo numbers on.
about 2 years later, my AMA card started showing Leader Member Admin along with the CD. i never applied for it. was later was told a similar story by hoss. the same thing happened to him around the same time frame, although a coupla years ahead of me. we think it was for not ever having a complaint filed about any event we ran, getting all the paperwork turned in correctly and in a reasonable time frame, and for running events correctly.
the scientific was added around 88-90, and it also is something i never applied for. i was told that i was presented for consideration as scientific leader by a group of fliers that promoted me for my work in making Ducted Fan and Turbine model aircraft available to everyday modelers. whatever that means, and i was never told who these folks were.
Interesting.

Mike
Old 07-21-2016, 04:22 AM
  #415  
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 big fred
Trying really hard to not say "told ya so"

here has been confusion among our members as to whether operations above 400 feet are permitted by the FAA. AMA has remained steadfast that the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Section 336 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act) permits operations above 400 feet if conducted within our safety program requiring the pilot to be an AMA member, to avoid and not interfere with manned aircraft, and to keep the model in visual line of sight of the pilot/observer.

Some of you , whom I will not name, remind me of people on the highway that cannot see in front of the car in front of them to see what is really going on in front of you.
"A letter in the hand is better than speculation in the bush".
Now that we have that there's no question about the 400 ft rule. the problem was nobody knew for sure. It puts all doubt behind.

Mike
Old 07-21-2016, 04:22 AM
  #416  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rcmiket
Interesting.

Mike
What's interesting about it?
Old 07-21-2016, 04:55 AM
  #417  
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 porcia83
Reminds me of the saying "can't see the forest through the trees". Even more bizzare though is that even when presented with something good, something positive, the naysayers still find a way to turn it into something bad, something horrible even. Because just wait, it might get worse later. We finally get something in writing from the FAA and the usual folks with the usual complaints start right in, oh gee, what's new with that. They couldn't do better? Wow, that's it? Sure, AMA is doing this but only as a way to make more money because....because drones! LoL.
Sometimes the problem is not the drones that fly, but the people who drone on, and on.
Old 07-21-2016, 04:56 AM
  #418  
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
"A letter in the hand is better than speculation in the bush".
Now that we have that there's no question about the 400 ft rule. the problem was nobody knew for sure. It puts all doubt behind.

Mike
Not nobody, anybody reading the laws and regulations, and understood them knew this for sure. No doubt at all.
Old 07-21-2016, 05:27 AM
  #419  
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
Sometimes the problem is not the drones that fly, but the people who drone on, and on.
Lol...well done.
Old 07-23-2016, 04:41 AM
  #420  
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 H5487
Except for the landing and takeoff phases (and perhaps cropdusting and law enforcement ops) full-scale aircraft don't usually operate below 500ft above the highest obstacle in sparsely-occupied areas, 1000ft in congested areas.
Keep in mind though the military does it all the time. All across the country there are Military Training Routes, where aircraft routinely operate below 500 feet and at speeds of 420 KIAS or more. Some of these are even flown at night using terrain following radar and/or FLIR. These routes are shown on sectionals as VRs, IRs, and SRs. But what most RC folks don't know is these routes can be up to 20 miles wide in places, and they're not always in sparsely populated areas. One of my favorites is a route that ends just west of Dulles.

If you've ever seen the Blues or T-Birds perform, you also know that even a subsonic aircraft can be on top you before you hear it for more than a second or so (not enough time to "avoid" per AMA & FAA rules).

Having nearly lost a jet when I hit a sparrow in the windscreen at 420 indicated on a VR route, I can only imagine how much damage would have been caused by a 2lb or more sUAS at that speed.
Old 07-23-2016, 07:18 AM
  #421  
H5487
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Franklin,

Yes, I'm familiar with MTRs and MTAs. I used to cut through the Atchafalaya Swamp northwest of New Orleans where the USN and USAF go to play. Heading home after flying all night for the Fed, ATC would ask if I would be agreeable to being used for drug interdiction and intercept practice. I'm pretty sure that more than just a few Cajun fishermen spilled their beers after a Cessna 337 with one or two mil birds close behind rocketed past at treetop level!

That was 20 years ago. We probably couldn't do that now!

Harvey

Last edited by H5487; 07-23-2016 at 07:40 AM.
Old 07-23-2016, 08:56 AM
  #422  
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 H5487
Franklin,

Yes, I'm familiar with MTRs and MTAs. I used to cut through the Atchafalaya Swamp northwest of New Orleans where the USN and USAF go to play. Heading home after flying all night for the Fed, ATC would ask if I would be agreeable to being used for drug interdiction and intercept practice. I'm pretty sure that more than just a few Cajun fishermen spilled their beers after a Cessna 337 with one or two mil birds close behind rocketed past at treetop level!

That was 20 years ago. We probably couldn't do that now!

Harvey
LOL...that sounds awesome! They had stories to tell after that.
Old 07-23-2016, 05:29 PM
  #423  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,523
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Franklin got lucky. More than one plane based at Whidbey Island has crashed over that training route. I know of a couple that crashed in the bombing range outside of Boardman OR as well, all due to low level flights. Were they pilot error, equipment failure or bird strikes? That's one we probably will never hear the answer to.
Old 07-23-2016, 05:45 PM
  #424  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default Why does this seem familiar?

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie
Franklin got lucky. More than one plane based at Whidbey Island has crashed over that training route. I know of a couple that crashed in the bombing range outside of Boardman OR as well, all due to low level flights. Were they pilot error, equipment failure or bird strikes? That's one we probably will never hear the answer to.
hmm......multiple crashes of the same or similar types or aircraft, all flown by the military pilots, all specially certified by the same type of organizations. It's a design failure, a manufacturing failure, a pilot failure, or an training/inspection failure. What it's not is a coincidence.

Old 07-23-2016, 06:01 PM
  #425  
H5487
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
hmm......multiple crashes of the same or similar types or aircraft, all flown by the military pilots, all specially certified by the same type of organizations. It's a design failure, a manufacturing failure, a pilot failure, or an training/inspection failure. What it's not is a coincidence.
One thing that I've learned from full-scale flying is that if I wasn't there, I have no business speculating or commenting on the cause of a crash. Anyone who feels a need to do so, even though they have absolutely no real knowledge of the accident or the events leading up to it, is an idiot!

Is your opinion based on knowledge?

Harvey

Last edited by H5487; 07-23-2016 at 06:05 PM.

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.