franklin_m

Add San Diego to the list of municipalities taking actions against drones:
"FAA regulations require drone hobbyists to provide prior notification to airport and air traffic control officials before flying within five miles of an airfield. Operators are also supposed to keep the unmanned aircraft within sight at all times, yield to manned airplanes and stay within an altitude of 400 feet above ground level. The FAA report on San Diego encounters said many of the incidents took place at altitudes of 2,000 feet or higher....the law could serve as a model for other local jurisdictions, so that drone operators would have uniform rules instead of a patchwork between various cities."

http://timesofsandiego.com/politics/...rcement-rules/


Add New Mexico to the list of states taking action against drones (Senate Bill 167):
"A person, state agency or political subdivision of the state shall not use a drone or unmanned aircraft to conduct surveillance of a person or of property owned by a person, a farm or an agricultural operation without the consent of that person, property owner, farm or agricultural operation. [emphasis added]"
Where "Surveillance" is defined as : "the observation of a place, person, group or ongoing activity"

Would sure seem to make it illegal to do aerial photography, FPV etc. of or over people's property w/o their consent. "Observation" is a pretty broad term.

https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/17%...ate/SB0167.pdf


Ok AMA Government Affairs...
You lost in Orlando and didn't even fight to defend the club in Pennsylvania - so let's see that "influence" you brag about in these cases!

Hydro Junkie

Don't hold your breath as it's probably not going to happen. They have gone into "Paper Tiger" mode, meaning they will watch to see what happens and draft a rebuttal after the fact. They won't "lose face" in the R/C community or risk anything that way

Hydro Junkie

Damn, what happened to the Pro-AMA clan? I expected SOMEONE to tell me I'm totally off-based on my last post,TWO DAYS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

There was only one of them.

Astro

Hydro Junkie

And, apparently, he's on vacation or something.

rcmiket

I really don't feel any of us AMA members are Pro ( well there was one or two) or Anti AMA were just concerned over the direction our organization has taken. Will this direction and focus change anytime soon I have serious doubts.

Mike

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I agree. I hope my comments are never taken as Anti-AMA. I am, and always have been, a believer in the importance of the AMA to our hobby, but, just like Mike and others here, I really do feel like they have lost touch of who they are as an organization, and where their priorities and focus should be.

With the advent of new technologies (flying camera platforms, FPV, autonomous flight, long-range capabilities, etc.) that are so far removed from traditional modeling activities and operations, I believe that some distinct separation needs to be made by the AMA in order to protect those things that we have traditionally enjoyed, and that the AMA has a ghost of a chance of "managing" with any kind of consistency.

I think it has been clearly shown that the vast majority of AMA members wish to primarily engage in traditional modeling activities. There are definitely those "traditionalists" who choose to dabble in the new technologies because they are very interesting, but I believe that the vast majority of that segment of modelers are following the established rules and guidelines and are not causing the widespread drama we see on the 6 o'clock news and in our legal system.

I really believe it is time and that there is a need AND room for a second CBO that is focused on, UNDERSTANDS and can advocate for these NEW technologies and the NEW challenges they pose for all.

It has become very clear to me that this new technology really has created a new "hobby" that poses distinctly different concerns than "traditional" modeling activities and, as such, deserves its own organization.

I also hope that we as modelers have evolved enough that my opinions here will not be labeled as separatist, or divisive, but rather forward-thinking and insightful into our ever-emerging world of RC and seeking the best potential outcome for all who want to participate in whatever aspect of this hobby that they choose.

Regards,

Astro

Hydro Junkie

I'd swear you two are in a debate club. I see well thought out posts that are almost flawless in the message presented. Too bad others don't spend as much time composing their posts as shown above

rgburrill

Though you might be interested - seems to be on topic:
"WASHINGTON – The Drone Advisory Committee (DAC) held its second meeting on January 31 in Reno, NV. The DAC is an RTCA Federal Advisory Committee comprised of executives who represent a wide array of stakeholders including: unmanned aircraft manufacturers and operators, traditional aviation groups, labor organizations, radio and navigation equipment manufacturers, airport operators, state and local government officials, and academia.
During the meeting, the committee reviewed three draft tasking statements: (1) the roles and responsibilities of federal, state, and local governments in regulating and enforcing drone laws; (2) technological and regulatory mechanisms that would allow drone operators to gain access to the airspace beyond what the agency currently permits under the Small UAS Rule; and (3) funding to offset the cost of supporting unmanned aircraft integration into the nation’s airspace."

cj_rumley

Good info, particularly the part you added emphasis to. I feel that the fed should be regulating and enforcing drone laws, not state and local authorities (except in cases where a drone is used in committing a violation of local/state statutes normally under their purview). I think we would be closer to that condition but for the meddling of one private agency in the efforts of the fed to perform their job. The longer the fed is impeded from doing that job they are chartered to do, the more regulation will come from state and local entities.

init4fun

Yep , Mike's and Astro's posts are well worded and I'd give both posts 5 stars under the old "rate this post" feature RCU used to have . I am just as I've always been for fifty odd years , pro on some AMA issues and anti on others . But as to being purely pro or anti of the AMA itself ? There is no way I'd support anything for half a century that I didn't believe in , and I believe my loyalty of the AMA itself has well survived the test of time .

franklin_m

For what it's worth, I found AMA Government Relations list of all their contacts these past few years. Big picture, I see where they spend their time and effort is a measure of their priorities - geographically, organizationally, etc. They basically post everything in one long list per year, almost as if they took meeting rosters and just typed them in. It's awful in terms of trying to do easy analysis. That said, I've been working away at it off and on for a few days now, and by the weekend I should have some data and graphs. Initial results were eye opening for me. I'll share when I get some of the charts finished.

rcmiket

My issue with the "AMA Government Relations" is the lack of communication on progress ( if any) their making with regulations and the lawsuits with the members. Even asking on the blog nets vague if any answers.
Leaving Leader Members out of the loop is also a huge mistake by Government Relations as well as the EC as we are supposed to be the lesion between them and the local club members.
I just don't get it.

Mike

franklin_m

Mike. I'm still working on the charts to make it easier to interpret, but here's some interesting numbers: 1171 line items listed, everything from airport notifications to listing name of organizations and individuals with whom they've met. They list airport notifications, but do not list the state. When you analyze by geography, those show up as "other."

53.6% were local level, 17.1% state, 12.6% airport notifications (arguably a local effort), 5.3% Federal, 4.7% commercial (top 5).

Where are they working? 27.7% did not list a locale (airport notifications etc.), 22.0% California, next highest was Florida at 4.78%, everywhere else was less than Florida's 4.78%.

Of their 1171 contacts, 96.4% were contacted only once. Less than 4% were contacted more than once. Who did they contact the most? Brendan Schulman at DJI (9 times). Next highest was Aaron Pierce of Pierce Aerospace (6), then Choloe Svolos at AUVSI (5), then Will Gonzalez an attorney (4). FAA (all people) a total of 45 contacts, no one individual more than 4 times.

Out of 1171 contacts listed, FAA total of 45. FAA contacts by YYYY-MM: Jun 2016 (1), July 2016 (3), Aug 2016 (7), Sep 2016 (9), Oct 2016 (6), Nov 2016 (10), Dec 2016 (1), Jan 2017 (8).

Of 786 legislative / executive contacts (lawmakers and/or mayors, governors, or their direct staff): all but six were only contacted once. And those six were contacted twice (and all city/county level folks).

To summarize, their work is mostly one-time contacts at a local level and, where a location is listed, it's California. If not doing that, they're helping with airport notifications.


So back to your question, which is a good one. It really comes down to two possible reasons. Either they're not good at communicating (points to lackluster leadership), or they're deliberately holding information. If the latter, one has to ask who benefits from holding information? That will help explain why they'd be withholding it.

Hydro Junkie

And now we have another state jumping on the bandwagon, as posted in the warbird forum:
[h=2]Utah House and Senate pass bill making it a Class B Misdemeanor to fly above 400 feet[/h]

It will be interesting to know how the LEOs are going to enforce this one since 400 feet is very difficult to judge from the ground and at a distance

cj_rumley

Just another way for AMA to sell the special privilege of flying a model airplane.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Sorry CJ, that's not the AMA selling a special privilege, its protecting our members. You can fly w/o AMA as you well know, but being enrolled in our safety and insurance program allows one to operate where others arent.

Really the whole law is a violation of federal law in any case.

franklin_m

I beg to differ

When AMA uses phrases like "...allows our members to operate under our programming which includes flight over 400 feet (emphasis added)," they are purposefully trying to intimate that with AMA membership comes some special privilege.

cj_rumley

Wanna bet they told the Utah legislators that "the Special Rule For Model Aircraft, sometimes referred to as Section 336 or 14 CFR 101 Subpart E" is interpreted by AMA to apply to AMA members only?

franklin_m

Hard to tell, though it wouldn't surprise me a bit.