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

Another ordinance using Orlando's as a template...

Reply
Old 02-13-2017, 11:32 PM
  #1
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 2,541
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default 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.
franklin_m is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 05:47 AM
  #2
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 5,959
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

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
Hydro Junkie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 06:07 AM
  #3
astrohog
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 1,554
Default

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
astrohog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 07:12 AM
  #4
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 4,983
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

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
rcmiket is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 07:14 AM
  #5
rgburrill
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Trumbull, CT
Posts: 1,690
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

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.
rgburrill is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 08:05 AM
  #6
astrohog
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 1,554
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rgburrill View Post
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.
I agree.

I am merely pointing out, that by creating a "park flyer" category of membership, the AMA may have given the impression (or at least a "gray area") to some that, by being an AMA Park Flyer member, one may be exempt, or have special park privileges.

Astro
astrohog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 09:51 AM
  #7
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,876
Default

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..
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 09:57 AM
  #8
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
I agree.

I am merely pointing out, that by creating a "park flyer" category of membership, the AMA may have given the impression (or at least a "gray area") to some that, by being an AMA Park Flyer member, one may be exempt, or have special park privileges.


Astro

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.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 11:07 AM
  #9
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 5,959
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
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.
And you're assuming people that bought park flyers read the rules why?
Hydro Junkie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 11:56 AM
  #10
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
And you're assuming people that bought park flyers read the rules why?
I took AstroHogs post as only parkflyers in AMA's program. Of those I would assume most would have at least skimmed the rules.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 01:32 PM
  #11
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 5,959
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

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
Hydro Junkie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 02:01 PM
  #12
astrohog
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 1,554
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
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..
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
astrohog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 02:14 PM
  #13
astrohog
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 1,554
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
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.
At the time that program was rolled out, I am sure there were very few parks that specifically restricted drones. Now, not so much.

You just made my point for me. Thank-You!

Regards,

Astro
astrohog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 04:17 PM
  #14
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 2,541
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcmiket View Post
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

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
franklin_m is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 09:50 PM
  #15
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
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
I think that either you are the one that needs to read. Astrohogs post, or you need to explain what you are talking about.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 09:54 PM
  #16
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
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
Maybe charter is the wrong word? They insure fields and list them on their website. I believe the AMA did support them. Doesn't always work out. But they need to fly on property with permission or from AMA insured fields.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 09:56 PM
  #17
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
At the time that program was rolled out, I am sure there were very few parks that specifically restricted drones. Now, not so much.

You just made my point for me. Thank-You!

Regards,

Astro
Flying radio control has been banned from many areas since, well forever!
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 09:57 PM
  #18
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
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
Traditional R/C = Dying Breed. I am one of those but we need to understand it won't be around much longer. Well maybe in very small numbers.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2017, 05:08 AM
  #19
CESSNA 421
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Charles, MO
Posts: 219
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

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.
CESSNA 421 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2017, 05:20 AM
  #20
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 4,983
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
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
I remember that well and he along with others were spot on the subject.

Mike
rcmiket is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2017, 05:22 AM
  #21
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 4,983
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CESSNA 421 View Post
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.

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
rcmiket is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2017, 06:22 AM
  #22
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 2,541
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcmiket View Post
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
Most recent posted minutes from EC meeting seem to indicate the EVP floated the idea of a special membership category for "drones". The way it's mentioned leads me to believe it's an attempt to get folks who might otherwise be inclined to go to IDRA (https://www.facebook.com/droneracingassociation). The problem is, from what I see, membership in that organization is free, and you pay for insurance (primary by the way) if you want it. Not sure how AMA plans to compete with that, as AMA's insurance is secondary, and I can't see them dropping price too far - lest the rest of the membership be up in arms.
franklin_m is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2017, 11:31 AM
  #23
Desertlakesflying
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sun Valley, NV
Posts: 1,997
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

When you vote for people that are promising more government, more government is what you get.... Maybe it's time to stop voting for those who are promising more government on the "other guy".
Desertlakesflying is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2017, 11:57 AM
  #24
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 5,959
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
I think that either you are the one that needs to read. Astrohogs post, or you need to explain what you are talking about.
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

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 02-15-2017 at 12:01 PM.
Hydro Junkie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2017, 01:17 PM
  #25
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
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
You and I are not discussing the same issue. You are discussing product instructions and I am discussing AMA rules. There is not much motivation to read instructions, more so for AMA. Besides I think most do read the instructions. At least the get started part.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:51 PM.