ira d

IMO the politicians that voted for the 336 bill did not think things through and probably knew little to nothing about RC operations. basically the bill attempted to put all RC flying for sport under the AMA
by making it a legal mandate to join the AMA, but what would happen if something would happen to the AMA if the there was a legal mandate to be a member. I know some would say its the same with
auto insurance but at least there are many insurance companies to choose from but there is only one AMA and I don't see another nationwide CBO starting up anytime soon.

franklin_m

I don't have any illusions that the individual members knew exactly what was in 336. They rely on staffers to look over each of the sections and give the thumbs up / thumbs down. Then the member looks at the bill as a whole and says "can I live with the stuff I don't like?" Then they vote.

Now, one would hope the staffers are knowlegable, but for the most part they're young adults working for not much money. Which is why most members rely on lobbyists to help them craft language, the first draft at least. What I suspect is AMA wanted to put in explicit language to make membership mandatory, but they knew the couldn't get away with that. So they made it less obvious, which led to the "...and within the programming."

What AMA didn't count on is that the FAA gets to interpret that language, and FAA seeing that it was vague (constitutionally vague as Taylor argued last week), the FAA basically said "we don't know what it means" so we'll basically just focus on the first half. And that's what landed us here, that FAA says they do not interpret it as requiring membership.

AMA has the power though. If they feel so strongly that's what it means, then all they have to do is move their safety code and safety programming to a members only area. That way FAA has to align with AMA's interpretation.

Rather than whine about what FAA is or isn't doing, why doesn't AMA just move the stuff behind the firewall and solve the problem?

rcmiket

That's the way it comes across as I see it..

Mike

Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

What's the old saying...."Don't poke the bear."

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I've asked here a couple of times and received zero responses.

Can someone please tell me, 1) How the AMA Foundation came to be, 2) How is it different from the AMA? (why can't the AMA serve the same purpose as the Foundation?).

Inquiring minds would like to know!

Thanks!

Astro

Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

Perhaps the Clinton Foundation can provide some clarification......!

franklin_m

I'm no expert, but I think of the foundation as a big pile of money. Roughly every $1,000,000 in assets produces about $100,000 in money each year they can give away w/o impacting the principle. The decision making authority for where that money goes is the board, which I think is 5 or fewer. Compare that to the EC, which is 13. So the AMA foundation "board" can decide to give AMA $100,000 for the specific purpose of gold plating the toilets at AMA HQ. Since that money is for a specific purpose, AMA has to spend it that way. So all you have to do is pack the foundation board with people who will give you what you want. Note how AMA even has a "liaison" with the foundation? Yep. It's an EC member.

It's a way of spending money that goes through a lot fewer hoops.

franklin_m

Personally, I wouldn't give a crap about the foundation except for one point - WE'RE funding it! That $300K that the EC gave them wasn't their money, it was our money. Fund the foundation with 100% outside funds, that's fine. But so long as the EC is putting our money into it, we should be very concerned.

dionysusbacchus

My Feedback: (25)

Without 336 the hobby is dead, or at least the serious part of the hobby. To enjoy the hobby at a serious level like turbine jets you will have to fly in Russia, China or Europe where they have more freedom. Being under the FAA alone would cause many to quit the hobby, some just by choice and others because they would not be physically able to fly under the new restrictions.

Air Line Pilot Association is fighting hard to get rid of 336, without requiring AMA membership to enjoy the benefits, 336 is basically castrated and has no teeth. The ALPA has some real clout, I'm surprised the AMA has been able to do what it has done, it's amazing.

News Room - ALPA

The ALPA wants tracking devices in all models, and they want everyone including hobbyists to be directly under the FAA. Unfortunately I believe this will all happen, because modeling is dying and the AMA is losing support, we are nothing but a pebble in the shoe of the FAA. There will be no reason to have clubs, everyone will just be flying toys in the park.

I will never sell all of my models, I get sick just thinking about it, but I am planning to get out of the hobby unfortunately. It has been a life long passion for me and I hope it doesn't kill me when I do have to quit.

I got the FAA app B4UFly, it made me laugh, no way I can fly anywhere!

franklin_m

I'm curious, how does requiring membership in AMA give 336 "teeth?"

rcmiket

You beat me to it.

Mike

dionysusbacchus

My Feedback: (25)

This is from Rich Hanson, and I agree:

1) You must affirm that you will abide by AMA's safety guidelines as a condition of membership.
2)Provide the AMA with up-to-date contact information so they can communicate with you concerning relevant safety matters.
3)Financially responsible, have adequate insurance to respond to any third-party claim for injury or property damage.

AMA chartered clubs provide the means to enforce AMA rules, especially in the case of the upper end of the hobby. People who don't belong to the AMA
are not going to be club members and will more than likely not follow any of the rules, and they are under no obligation to do so. I have first had experience with flying at non-AMA
"flying sites", it could at times be total mayhem.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Let’s look at this objectively; it is the capabilities of the “new” technology, AKA “drones” that is the cause for concern of all the groups mentioned above. The AMA is/has made the fatal mistake of not recognizing this and has chosen to embrace (try to anyway) the drones instead of creating separation from, and educating the Feds of these distinct differences in order that they DO remain relevant and allow the hobby to survive as it has for many decades. Fact is, LOS RC flying at established fields has not and does not pose any more of a threat to the NAS now, as it ever has. All of this hullabaloo and governance of traditional operations is completely unnecessary and does absolutely nothing to enhance anybody’s safety, but will be the silver bullett that kills the hobby as we have enjoyed it for decades.

Shame on the AMA for not recognizing this and going for the power and money grab instead.

Regards,

Astro

dionysusbacchus

My Feedback: (25)

Well Astro, I hope you feel better, now that we have blamed the AMA for the new technology, what do we do now? I'm mean get real, no baby-kisser gives a damn about what a model is, one, two, three, four, five propellers? Who cares, the AMA did what it thought it had to do, we have to change with the times or die.

By the way I used to live in Bellingham, grew up there, used to fly at the Lynden airport when it was surrounded by farm fields, and also the socker fields. Yes I was also a member of the Bell Air RC flyers.

Here is me in 1982 at my house on the Mt Baker HWY and my Jemco FW190-D9 at the old Noon Rd club field! Got some press!

franklin_m

So, affirm to AMA that you'll follow the rules; if I screw up AMA kicks me out - BFD. Or, affirm to FAA that I'll follow the rules; if I screw up, FAA can fine me - Big Deal! AMA appears relatively toothless by comparison.

And what would that be? NOTAMs & TFRs that are out of date? Or only to those who live in the area, completely ignoring anyone just outside their magic distance that fly in the area affected? Or might it be all the emails I've received this year, NOT ONE discussing a safety issue. Not so much as a comment on the event in NY even!

That's not required by law, thus irrelevant in discussion as to its impact on 336. Besides, for a great many, it's not AMA providing coverage, it's their homeowner's providing coverage.


What? Like "Mayhem Park" in Florida? Where a whole lot of AMA members, who knew AMA was required to fly at the site, stood by and watched a NON AMA member not just fly, but fly a turbine multiple times? Now that's enforcement!!!

franklin_m

You hit it. What AMA failed to notice that in a mass media society something like "optics" can be a big influence. Back when AMA first chose to embrace drones, they predicted that we'd all be painted with the same brush. Yet they embraced them anyway. Think of what might have been had AMA not embraced MRs as "model aircraft." They would have been able to draw a clear distinction between the types of things flown by their member and everything else. And the best part that distinction would be easily recognizable: four horizontally mounted spinning thingys make it fly? A Drone. Something that looks like a plane / helicopter? NOT drone.

Fast forward to that drone hitting the heli in NY. AMA could say: That sort of vehicle is not within our "programming" and thus it's clear we're not the problem.

dionysusbacchus

My Feedback: (25)

I would like a definition of a drone. Would it be 4 motors? Maybe ready to fly? Can carry a camera? Be flown FPV? Have some sort of flight stabilization on it?

Oh, here I found a drone:

Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

Great video!

There is not a denoted meaning of a "Drone" and that is likely the biggest problem we face. Models are flown by Modelers and drones are flown by everybody else.The FAA will take the easy road and lump them all together. Unfortunately, the AMA has done the same. How do we climb out of that pit when the czars at the AMA has no interest in doing the right thing? I don't have any answers and it's frustrating as hell. I wish the Sport Flyers Association would resurface.

dionysusbacchus

My Feedback: (25)

Franklin, lets just way we don't agree, but everyone knows you don't like many aspects of RC, what I fly is definitely in your cross hairs. You appear to be standing on both sides of the fence though, not sure if you like 336 or not. I definitely don't like what you fly, some of the most dangerous RC there is, helicopters. Just look at the decapitations and mayhem caused by those things, scary.

Roman Pirozek Jr: Man decapitates himself with his own remote-control helicopter | Daily Mail Online

https://gizmodo.com/a-swiss-man-was-...icop-777233761

Even and 18 month old baby was killed by your demon toys Franklin:
Baby killed by remote control helicopter ? BorneoPost Online | Borneo , Malaysia, Sarawak Daily News | Largest English Daily In Borneo

https://rc.runryder.com/helicopter/t70830p1/

Now give me a list of turbine jet fatalities... I'll be waiting...

init4fun

Yes I do realize your question is presented as a Troll taunt , but sure , what the Hell , I'll answer it ;

In technicality , a drone is ANY remote controlled flying device . Period !

In legalese , it would appear that a drone is any remote controlled flying device that's flown beyond it's operator's direct line of sight (or is being piloted autonomously)

To the general public , you know , that group of largely aviation uninformed folks who actually decide what words mean , a drone is most certainly a "multicopter" !

So there ya go , since you asked you may now consider yourself schooled on exactly what a "Drone" is .

PS , don't forget to pay a bit of respect to the poor Bee , whose name was pilfered for this discussion

franklin_m

First there's nothing special about power source; something with a lot less kinetic energy than a jet has cause fatality:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...del-plane.html
http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=396731

I don't disagree there should be limitations on what's done with helicopters, where, and how close to people. The first one is no surprise, when you're directing a flying lawn mower at your face, the slightest mistake or equipment failure can result in disaster.

As for turbines specifically, there's been one crash that sent someone to the hospital with burns. A half a degree change in trajectory could have been worse. Just because it wasn't a fatality doesn't mean it shouldn't be take seriously. Because it easily could have been a fatality.

I'm opposed to 336 for the same reason ALPA opposes it. It precludes the FAA from performing its safety function by excluding from regulation that largest number of drone operations - recreational ones. And the recreational drone flyers are operating things that are larger, 3x faster, and with little if any proven knowledge of the airspace in which they operate or the rules that govern it.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

a guy in Phoenix(?) flew into himself with his 40 size trainer...death resulted.
a guy calling cuts at a warbird pylon race out west got killed while in the cage by an errant racer.
some guy in the last century(80s,i think) managed to hit himself with his faultily repaired aeromaster 2 biplane...death resulted.
no death involved. but some guy flying a pattern plane back in the 70s decided to play chicken with the goodyear blimp, of all things. wing sliced open a good sized hole in the blimp. california event.

fixed wing been killing folks for at least 30 years here in the states, and who knows about europe/aisia record.

dionysusbacchus

My Feedback: (25)

Well having all drone flyers register and get on the FAA mailing list would seem to punch a hole in your theory that the FAA can't do it's job with 336, you are just wrong, but you seem hell bent on one goal no matter how you have to spin it.

Also, I'm not saying that because turbine jets have no fatalities that we can forget about safety, another spin of yours. I have been trying to tell you that you don't have a clue what you are talking about concerning modeling. I have far more experience than you in this hobby, far more than you will ever have, you don't know what you are talking about.

Do you think I'm going to fly one of my $10,000 jets just outside the fence at the LAX approach? I've been in this hobby all my life and I've been a member of many clubs and flown all over the US and in England. I know some great people, like Four Star General Ray Johns, I knew him when we were stationed at McChord AFB. Ray was Commander, 62d Airlift Wing, me and him would fly on the active flight line during the duty day! The tower would call me when they had a C-141 coming in to land, so that we could land our model planes. Now that is a bad a $ $ dude, way more of a freedom loving patriot than you could ever hope to be Franklin. Ray flies turbine jets and has been in Top Gun at Frank Tiano's competition several times.

I could go on, Col Thacker is another one, he has done so much for the hobby, I just love that man. You Franklin would not qualify to be a pimple on his a $ $. The Col flies a GIANT turbine F-100 and he's 100 years old!

Went flying today, did some turbine flying at my own private full scale airport, I called myself to approve it!

I'll close with some pictures of today and Gen Johns with his BVM 1/6 F-16 and his dear old dad! And one of my 1/4 scale F-104 (almost 14' long) and my new Skymaster F-4 for comparison! Peace out!

franklin_m

Fairly typical response, when someone can't engage on the facts, they resort to personal attacks. Also, I wonder how USAF IG would feel about an individual using government assets for personal enjoyment, in this case an active runway. Come to think of it, I'm sure USAF safety would like to know as well. Thanks for mentioning names and time periods.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

WHAT? I never blamed the AMA for the technology. I blamed them for not recognizing how the capabilities of this technology would affect our hobby.
and they were WRONG.
I disagree. I have no issues with drones at all. They simply do not operate in such a manner that the AMA has any chance of assuring they will not cause any issues in the general public arena. The AMA does not have to welcome anything that doesn't fit their model. Drones don't fit their model.

I bet we know some of the same folks that got RC off the ground (no pun intended!) here. Most of those guys have sadly passed. Art Schaller, Dave Boyd, Bill Radder (still with us and flying!). I still fly mostly at the Bell-Air field. How long has it been since you've visited this area? It sure has changed!

Regards,

Astro