Another ordinance using Orlando's as a template...
#1
Thread Starter
Another ordinance using Orlando's as a template...
AMA influence was insufficient to keep Orlando from passing an ordinance, and now another city is using that one as a template for their own.
https://flaglerlive.com/104658/drones-flagler-beach/
AMA government affairs keeps telling us they're so influential. Starting to wonder if they're believing their own rhetoric.
https://flaglerlive.com/104658/drones-flagler-beach/
AMA government affairs keeps telling us they're so influential. Starting to wonder if they're believing their own rhetoric.
#2
Sounds to me like another "knee-jerk" reaction on the part of the city. Since a majority of the city is already a no fly zone, due to the local airport and helipads, the city really needs to look at the already established areas and re-write the ordinance accordingly. As stated in the article, if the ordinance passes, it will be a race to the courts as far as who gets the fine money, the city or the FAA
#3
My Feedback: (1)
No flying within 500' of a park.
I would assume that as more and more municipalities adopt similar ordinances, it will render the Park flyer program virtually extinct and membership will decrease even more.
Ironic, as the Park Flyer program was (IMO) the start of the AMA's, "romancing the drones" initiative.
I wonder what is the AMA doing to protect its Park Flyer members?
Regards,
Astro
I would assume that as more and more municipalities adopt similar ordinances, it will render the Park flyer program virtually extinct and membership will decrease even more.
Ironic, as the Park Flyer program was (IMO) the start of the AMA's, "romancing the drones" initiative.
I wonder what is the AMA doing to protect its Park Flyer members?
Regards,
Astro
#4
Just reinforcing the fact that we ( the AMA) should have made a DISTINCT separation between "traditional" ( for a lack of a better word) model aviation and the "droners".
Mike
Mike
#5
Looks perfectly reasonable and within AMA guidelines to me. I hope more cities follow their lead.
BTW, flying on city owned parks is not a right, it's a privilege granted by the city.
BTW, flying on city owned parks is not a right, it's a privilege granted by the city.
#7
I don't see much significance. Except for park flyers sized aircraft they do not promote flying from parks. Rather from a chartered field. And the parkflyer people have not supported the AMA that much..
#8
I don't see how they did that. Their rules clearly say not to fly form private property without permission and not to fly from restricted parks.
#9
#10
#11
You must not have gotten the memo titled "Those required to read the literature before use"
Everything after the title is blank, just like the faces of those that get busted for doing what they're not supposed to be doing with a quad
Everything after the title is blank, just like the faces of those that get busted for doing what they're not supposed to be doing with a quad
#12
My Feedback: (1)
I think you have the support thing backwards; the park flyer members support the AMA with their membership dues, in turn, I would think there would be an expectation that the AMA would support THEM.
Regards,
Astro
#14
Thread Starter
Spot on.
Ironic, that back in 2014 Bob Violett sent a formal letter to AMA saying that FPV would attract unnecessary attention. He even went on to say that "It cannot be denied that FPV operations contribute to the blurring of the line of distinction between a model airplane and a sUAS."
He adds that "The AMA's opinion that somehow documents #550 and #560 will suffice to control the FPV menace, is true fantasy. The AMA has shown multiple times in the past that it is unwilling to discipline any of its members for Safety Code Violations."
Sure seems to be coming true...
http://www.bvmjets.com/Safety/AMA0714-1.pdf
#15
I think that either you are the one that needs to read. Astrohogs post, or you need to explain what you are talking about.
#16
Not looking to be argumentative here, just clarify, but how can the AMA promite flying from chartered fields, when the AMA doesn't charter fields? There is no such thing.
I think you have the support thing backwards; the park flyer members support the AMA with their membership dues, in turn, I would think there would be an expectation that the AMA would support THEM.
Regards,
Astro
I think you have the support thing backwards; the park flyer members support the AMA with their membership dues, in turn, I would think there would be an expectation that the AMA would support THEM.
Regards,
Astro
#17
#18
Spot on.
Ironic, that back in 2014 Bob Violett sent a formal letter to AMA saying that FPV would attract unnecessary attention. He even went on to say that "It cannot be denied that FPV operations contribute to the blurring of the line of distinction between a model airplane and a sUAS."
He adds that "The AMA's opinion that somehow documents #550 and #560 will suffice to control the FPV menace, is true fantasy. The AMA has shown multiple times in the past that it is unwilling to discipline any of its members for Safety Code Violations."
Sure seems to be coming true...
http://www.bvmjets.com/Safety/AMA0714-1.pdf
Ironic, that back in 2014 Bob Violett sent a formal letter to AMA saying that FPV would attract unnecessary attention. He even went on to say that "It cannot be denied that FPV operations contribute to the blurring of the line of distinction between a model airplane and a sUAS."
He adds that "The AMA's opinion that somehow documents #550 and #560 will suffice to control the FPV menace, is true fantasy. The AMA has shown multiple times in the past that it is unwilling to discipline any of its members for Safety Code Violations."
Sure seems to be coming true...
http://www.bvmjets.com/Safety/AMA0714-1.pdf
#19
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Charles,
MO
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To RCMIKET comment "Just reinforcing the fact that we ( the AMA) should have made a DISTINCT separation between "traditional" ( for a lack of a better word) model aviation and the "droners". "
I proposed this to the AMA president over 2 years ago and was completely blow off by him. All the drone problems we have had I outlined as something that could/would happen and still was blown off. I hope Orlando succeeds in banning drones then perhaps the rest of the country will follow suit.
I proposed this to the AMA president over 2 years ago and was completely blow off by him. All the drone problems we have had I outlined as something that could/would happen and still was blown off. I hope Orlando succeeds in banning drones then perhaps the rest of the country will follow suit.
#20
Spot on.
Ironic, that back in 2014 Bob Violett sent a formal letter to AMA saying that FPV would attract unnecessary attention. He even went on to say that "It cannot be denied that FPV operations contribute to the blurring of the line of distinction between a model airplane and a sUAS."
He adds that "The AMA's opinion that somehow documents #550 and #560 will suffice to control the FPV menace, is true fantasy. The AMA has shown multiple times in the past that it is unwilling to discipline any of its members for Safety Code Violations."
Sure seems to be coming true...
http://www.bvmjets.com/Safety/AMA0714-1.pdf
Ironic, that back in 2014 Bob Violett sent a formal letter to AMA saying that FPV would attract unnecessary attention. He even went on to say that "It cannot be denied that FPV operations contribute to the blurring of the line of distinction between a model airplane and a sUAS."
He adds that "The AMA's opinion that somehow documents #550 and #560 will suffice to control the FPV menace, is true fantasy. The AMA has shown multiple times in the past that it is unwilling to discipline any of its members for Safety Code Violations."
Sure seems to be coming true...
http://www.bvmjets.com/Safety/AMA0714-1.pdf
Mike
#21
To RCMIKET comment "Just reinforcing the fact that we ( the AMA) should have made a DISTINCT separation between "traditional" ( for a lack of a better word) model aviation and the "droners". "
I proposed this to the AMA president over 2 years ago and was completely blow off by him. All the drone problems we have had I outlined as something that could/would happen and still was blown off. I hope Orlando succeeds in banning drones then perhaps the rest of the country will follow suit.
I proposed this to the AMA president over 2 years ago and was completely blow off by him. All the drone problems we have had I outlined as something that could/would happen and still was blown off. I hope Orlando succeeds in banning drones then perhaps the rest of the country will follow suit.
Many of us supported this "separation" idea to protect what we had and we all were " blown off" so don't feel alone. To this day I still disagree with the direction our organization has taken.
Mike
#22
Thread Starter
#24
In post 9, I said "And you're assuming people that bought park flyers read the rules why?"
In post 10, you said "I took AstroHogs post as only parkflyers in AMA's program. Of those I would assume most would have at least skimmed the rules"
In post 11, I said "You must not have gotten the memo titled "Those required to read the literature before use"
Everything after the title is blank, just like the faces of those that get busted for doing what they're not supposed to be doing with a quad"
If you need an explanation, it's simple:
NOT EVERYONE READS EVERYTHING BEFORE USING A PRODUCT. MANY DON'T READ ANYTHING, JUST INSTALL BATTERIES OR ASSEMBLE AS NEEDED PER THE PICTURES AND CALL IT GOOD. AS HARD AS IT IS TO BELIEVE IN THIS ERA OF NO PATIENCE, MANY SEEM TO ASK WHY THEY SHOULD SPEND THE TIME READING WHEN, SOONER OR LATER, SOMEONE WILL TRY TO THEM WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO ANYWAY
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 02-15-2017 at 12:01 PM.
#25
In post 8, you said "Their rules clearly say not to fly form private property without permission and not to fly from restricted parks."
In post 9, I said "And you're assuming people that bought park flyers read the rules why?"
In post 10, you said "I took AstroHogs post as only parkflyers in AMA's program. Of those I would assume most would have at least skimmed the rules"
In post 11, I said "You must not have gotten the memo titled "Those required to read the literature before use"
Everything after the title is blank, just like the faces of those that get busted for doing what they're not supposed to be doing with a quad"
If you need an explanation, it's simple:
NOT EVERYONE READS EVERYTHING BEFORE USING A PRODUCT. MANY DON'T READ ANYTHING, JUST INSTALL BATTERIES OR ASSEMBLE AS NEEDED PER THE PICTURES AND CALL IT GOOD. AS HARD AS IT IS TO BELIEVE IN THIS ERA OF NO PATIENCE, MANY SEEM TO ASK WHY THEY SHOULD SPEND THE TIME READING WHEN, SOONER OR LATER, SOMEONE WILL TRY TO THEM WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO ANYWAY
In post 9, I said "And you're assuming people that bought park flyers read the rules why?"
In post 10, you said "I took AstroHogs post as only parkflyers in AMA's program. Of those I would assume most would have at least skimmed the rules"
In post 11, I said "You must not have gotten the memo titled "Those required to read the literature before use"
Everything after the title is blank, just like the faces of those that get busted for doing what they're not supposed to be doing with a quad"
If you need an explanation, it's simple:
NOT EVERYONE READS EVERYTHING BEFORE USING A PRODUCT. MANY DON'T READ ANYTHING, JUST INSTALL BATTERIES OR ASSEMBLE AS NEEDED PER THE PICTURES AND CALL IT GOOD. AS HARD AS IT IS TO BELIEVE IN THIS ERA OF NO PATIENCE, MANY SEEM TO ASK WHY THEY SHOULD SPEND THE TIME READING WHEN, SOONER OR LATER, SOMEONE WILL TRY TO THEM WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO ANYWAY