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 09-15-2016, 06:43 AM
  #601  
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
Mike
I would lose every time, because I cannot do the Spock hand sign.
Old 09-15-2016, 07:24 AM
  #602  
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 NorfolkSouthern
I was looking at the AMA blog recently, and the AMA believes that you have to be a member in order to participate in their CBO. Otherwise, you have to go through Part 107. Sorry to hijack your cruise and recipe thread.
sorry not sorry, good one!

You're late to the table though, the whole AMA wants you to be a member to follow membership rules outrage came and went, tax issues, adorned shirts, and now money at flying events has taken it's place.

See this thread for more insight.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...ply-336-a.html
Old 09-15-2016, 07:42 AM
  #603  
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 my.

And you just read that in his voice.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	star-trek-mr-sulu-george-takei-600x450.jpg
Views:	26
Size:	29.8 KB
ID:	2181172  
Old 09-15-2016, 07:58 AM
  #604  
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 TimJ
Oh my.

And you just read that in his voice.
He's the best!

http://<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6nSKkwzwdW4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Old 09-15-2016, 09:34 AM
  #605  
GSXR1000
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (7)
 
GSXR1000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	36928239.jpg
Views:	26
Size:	66.7 KB
ID:	2181200  
Old 09-15-2016, 09:53 AM
  #606  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 26,958
Received 343 Likes on 274 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern
I was looking at the AMA blog recently, and the AMA believes that you have to be a member in order to participate in their CBO. Otherwise, you have to go through Part 107. Sorry to hijack your cruise and recipe thread.
That's up for debate but an integral part of the AMA safety program is acknowledging to fly by the safety code and the ongoing education and TFR notifications etc that we offer.

Cause an issue for a manned aircraft and it doesn't matter if you belong to the AMA or the Communist Party, you're going to be in deep cargaza with the FAA.

The FAA has acknowledged that a CBO is a membership based organization and the AMA believes that to be within our programming you need to be a member. It's yet to be tested in court. But given that the AMA has been fighting tirelessly for years with the FAA to retain our rights, why would you not join and support them if you're going to use their hard work?
Old 09-15-2016, 10:01 AM
  #607  
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 GSXR1000
LoL...this can be the basis for new thread, google StarTrek memes and see. Thanks for the laugh.
Old 09-15-2016, 10:52 AM
  #608  
GSXR1000
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (7)
 
GSXR1000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
LoL...this can be the basis for new thread, google StarTrek memes and see. Thanks for the laugh.
this is what it's like at our club, lol if we fly 3d when there is another plane in the air.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	14314=8029-aqxps3.jpg
Views:	36
Size:	42.7 KB
ID:	2181205  
Old 09-15-2016, 10:58 AM
  #609  
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 GSXR1000
this is what it's like at our club, lol if we fly 3d when there is another plane in the air.
It's universal I believe.....too funny!
Old 09-15-2016, 11:38 AM
  #610  
GSXR1000
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (7)
 
GSXR1000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

..
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	16629=11623-sell.jpg
Views:	24
Size:	65.0 KB
ID:	2181214  
Old 09-15-2016, 12:04 PM
  #611  
NorfolkSouthern
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,588
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey
That's up for debate but an integral part of the AMA safety program is acknowledging to fly by the safety code and the ongoing education and TFR notifications etc that we offer.

Cause an issue for a manned aircraft and it doesn't matter if you belong to the AMA or the Communist Party, you're going to be in deep cargaza with the FAA.

The FAA has acknowledged that a CBO is a membership based organization and the AMA believes that to be within our programming you need to be a member. It's yet to be tested in court. But given that the AMA has been fighting tirelessly for years with the FAA to retain our rights, why would you not join and support them if you're going to use their hard work?
That is the whole issue. No, the FAA doesn't require actual CBO membership. But on the other hand, the AMA can deny participation in the CBO to non-members. Thus, those non-members, since they would not be participating in the CBO, would be outside of Part 101 and would have no other option than to acquire a Part 107 license. That's what I gather from the FAA.

So.. If the AMA doesn't consider a non-member as a CBO participant, and and that person can't get vetted by the TSA for some reason, or can't pass the Part 107 test, or make it to the facility to take the test for that matter, then it appears the best option may be control-line flying.
Old 09-15-2016, 12:25 PM
  #612  
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 NorfolkSouthern
That is the whole issue. No, the FAA doesn't require actual CBO membership. But on the other hand, the AMA can deny participation in the CBO to non-members. Thus, those non-members, since they would not be participating in the CBO, would be outside of Part 101 and would have no other option than to acquire a Part 107 license. That's what I gather from the FAA.

So.. If the AMA doesn't consider a non-member as a CBO participant, and and that person can't get vetted by the TSA for some reason, or can't pass the Part 107 test, or make it to the facility to take the test for that matter, then it appears the best option may be control-line flying.
Don't forget free flight.

The AMA has every right to exclude someone from being a member if they won't pay dues. It can't stop anyone from operating by the AMA's rules though. I don't know why not being part of the AMA or a CBO would cause any issues being vetted by the TSA. The same for passing a test, that's on them to study for. The AMA shouldn't be held responsible for someone not paying to be a member, not studying for a test, or being close a location to take a test.

Non AMA folks who enjoy the hobby shouldn't have anything to worry about if they aren't doing anything wrong, or operating unsafely. Most likely they will continue to fly just as they have before, and will have no issues.
Old 09-15-2016, 01:01 PM
  #613  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 26,958
Received 343 Likes on 274 Posts
Default

Exactly ^

I really believe and I'm not a lawyer or cop or employee of the FAA, this is my personal opinion and not that of any CBO

If you're operating safely nobody will bother you, if you're operating unsafely than AMA membership isn't going to keep you from being punished for being stupid.
Old 09-15-2016, 01:19 PM
  #614  
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 BarracudaHockey
Exactly ^

I really believe and I'm not a lawyer or cop or employee of the FAA, this is my personal opinion and not that of any CBO

If you're operating safely nobody will bother you, if you're operating unsafely than AMA membership isn't going to keep you from being punished for being stupid.
You nailed it!

Or if you have someone like Mrs. Kravitz in your neighborhood peeking through her windows at you!
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	3da2dc525113a43e22012cbad2569927.jpg
Views:	25
Size:	15.7 KB
ID:	2181220  
Old 09-16-2016, 05:04 AM
  #615  
GSXR1000
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (7)
 
GSXR1000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern
That is the whole issue. No, the FAA doesn't require actual CBO membership. But on the other hand, the AMA can deny participation in the CBO to non-members. Thus, those non-members, since they would not be participating in the CBO, would be outside of Part 101 and would have no other option than to acquire a Part 107 license. That's what I gather from the FAA.

So.. If the AMA doesn't consider a non-member as a CBO participant, and and that person can't get vetted by the TSA for some reason, or can't pass the Part 107 test, or make it to the facility to take the test for that matter, then it appears the best option may be control-line flying.
Control line flying like this?
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Kite-flying.jpg
Views:	19
Size:	15.4 KB
ID:	2181262  
Old 09-17-2016, 05:45 AM
  #616  
H5487
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Do NOT make the mistake of believing that all good intentions of abiding by the rules will be rewarded with leniency should you inadvertently and unintentionally do something wrong with a model. Full scale pilots are very aware of how the FAA can come down on them like a ton of bricks for even the slightest transgression when it wants to make a statement/set an example/halt a perceived trend/etc. More than one pilot (or mechanic) has found himself in front of an FAA firing squad for something that deserves nothing more than a slap on the wrist. The threat of FAA "overpunishment" is such a reality that AOPA and other full-scale advocacy groups offer legal plans (and sometimes representation in cases that have far-reaching negative possibilities).

My point is that while following the AMA's Safety Code will likely keep a modeler out of the FAA's crosshairs, it isn't guaranteed and we (as well as the AMA) need to always remember this.

Harvey
Old 09-18-2016, 12:43 AM
  #617  
NorfolkSouthern
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,588
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Cause to celebrate, yes, I would think. However, it seems that both traditional modelers and multi-rotor hobbyists are still on the FAA's radar: http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-new...-skies-n649701
Old 09-18-2016, 03:49 AM
  #618  
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

"NASA is working with industry and the FAA to create a new low-altitude air traffic control system specifically for drones. Industry and government officials say such a system will be needed if there are to eventually be widespread drone deliveries by Amazon and other companies [emphasis added]."

It's not a matter of "if," rather just "when." It'll be tough to control "some" of the sUAS at low altitude w/o controlling "all" of the sUAS at low altitude.
Old 09-18-2016, 04:12 AM
  #619  
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 franklin_m
"NASA is working with industry and the FAA to create a new low-altitude air traffic control system specifically for drones. Industry and government officials say such a system will be needed if there are to eventually be widespread drone deliveries by Amazon and other companies [emphasis added]."

It's not a matter of "if," rather just "when." It'll be tough to control "some" of the sUAS at low altitude w/o controlling "all" of the sUAS at low altitude.
It's coming and were powerless to stop it.

Mike
Old 09-18-2016, 06:25 AM
  #620  
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 rcmiket
It's coming and were powerless to stop it.

Mike
Our current level of technology (and it's rate of advancement) would determine how fast and to what extent a "Low Altitude UAS Air Traffic Control" would be implemented because detection and monitoring are key parts of controlling airspace and the technology just isn't avail for sUAs yet. Traditional systems such as radar have trouble at the lower altitudes due to "ground clutter". (In this case, think of ground clutter as metropolitan buildings creating radar "shadows" that limit the radar's coverage area.) Compounding the problem is that even the newest digital air traffic control radar cannot detect the smaller UAVs that we fly. And newer-technology ATC systems such as ADS-B require that every aircraft in the monitored airspace (both manned and unmanned) be equipped with an electronic box that reports its position to ATC. This equipment is currently very expensive (as light full-scale aircraft owners are currently discovering as we scramble to comply) and too heavy for sUAV applications.

Unfortunately, when technology lags behind the FAA's dreams/needs, the usual practice is for the FAA to prohibit unequipped aircraft operations in congested/controlled airspace until the problem can be solved. (Examples: The FAA's push for lightplane transponders in the 1970s, and the currently looming requirement for ADS-B boxes by 2020.) Therefore, if the FAA were to decide that a low level air traffic control system be required in congested metropolitan areas, it wouldn't be surprising for the FAA to ban all sUAVs (including models) unless they are equipped with ADS-B style reporting boxes. Such a requirement would virtually kill inner-city model flying fields in cities with commercial airports, thus relegating the r/c hobby to the same status as hazardous waste dumps!

And the public cannot understand why today's kids have left traditionally "acceptable" activities and have turned to drugs instead!

Harvey

Last edited by H5487; 09-18-2016 at 06:38 AM.
Old 09-18-2016, 06:47 AM
  #621  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Meanwhile, membership continues to grow, and new clubs devoted to MR flight are being chartered. Guess it's all for nothing.....

Didn't realize all the kids nowadays have turned to drugs. At least 30,000 or so are part of this hobby, at least as AMA members.

The end isn't near, notwithstanding the perpetual and ongoing doom and gloom. We should continue to go out and fly and have fun.
Old 09-18-2016, 06:58 AM
  #622  
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
It's coming and were powerless to stop it.

Mike
Why are we powerless to stop this? Do you think the public wants thousand of delivery drones to fly just two hundred feet above their homes?
Old 09-18-2016, 07:44 AM
  #623  
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
Why are we powerless to stop this? Do you think the public wants thousand of delivery drones to fly just two hundred feet above their homes?
The answer is Probably Yes! It seems that way too many folks will rush to embrace anything that is new, trendy, and exciting before giving much thought to any negative impacts the new thing might have (such as the noise of drones flying only 200ft above their houses). By the time they discover the negative aspects of something, it's too late to put the genie back into the bottle and we're all stuck with it.

Also, we probably ARE powerless to stop it. Our Constitution and Bill Of Rights have been reinterpreted to the point that large corporations often have more rights than people now. Therefore, Google, Amazon, Pizza Hut etc will likely be given the go ahead for drone deliveries regardless of how many folks object to having them flying just 200ft above their houses day and night.

Harvey

Last edited by H5487; 09-18-2016 at 07:54 AM.
Old 09-18-2016, 07:58 AM
  #624  
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
The answer is Probably Yes! It seems that way too many folks will rush to embrace anything that is new, trendy, and exciting before giving much thought to any negative impacts the new thing might have (such as the noise of drones flying only 200ft above their houses). By the time they discover the negative aspects of something, it's too late to put the genie back into the bottle and we're all stuck with it.

Also, we probably ARE powerless to stop it. Our Constitution and Bill Of Rights have been reinterpreted to the point that large corporations often have more rights than people now. Therefore, Google, Amazon, Pizza Hut etc will likely be given the go ahead for drone deliveries regardless of how many folks object to having them flying just 200ft above their houses day and night.

Harvey
I disagree. We can stop this and it won't just be AMA members. A case has already been won by someone who shot a drone out of the sky over his property. Property rights cases may make hay of this. The FAA has gotten around this largely by settling cases out of court. They cannot do that if there is a large number of cases.
Old 09-18-2016, 08:17 AM
  #625  
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
I disagree. We can stop this and it won't just be AMA members. A case has already been won by someone who shot a drone out of the sky over his property. Property rights cases may make hay of this. The FAA has gotten around this largely by settling cases out of court. They cannot do that if there is a large number of cases.
Sport, you're using at best anecdotal information...there is not "case" that was on about a drone being shot out of the sky, nor will property rights cases guide here...the NAS isn't our property, and the FAA has settled exactly one case if I'm not mistaken, basically reducing a fine (which was still paid by the offending party). Even if there were going to be a large number of cases against the FAA, which there won't be, it won't affect how the NAS is regulated for the most part.

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.