goaliesbeware

About a year ago, I got back in to the hobby. Bought a bunch of electronics and foam, started building, and now I recently completed my first balsa kit. A Sig Kadet, and I'm damn proud of it. Shout out to the many threads on here that have discussed kit building, they been very helpful.
Today, after reading the new FAA rules I'm pretty frustrated. I live here in the country in Iowa on some land, and I think it's ridiculous that I won't be able to fly my RC planes and UAS more than 400' away. I'll admit, I built a quadcopter and I fly it FPV through some of my trails and wind rows illegally since I don't have a spotter. But if a plane is within 20ft of the ground and between trees... I have an AMA field about 30 minutes away, but for $150 for the AMA and local membership that's pretty steep just to be flying an electric RC airplane made out of foam. As I've been building this Kadet I've looked into joining the local club so I could get access to the dedicated pavement and some help for the first flight.
So while this argument is mainly about the FAA's new proposed rules, I read the AMA email someone posted on here. And that got me really going.
The email was somewhat bragging when it stated "we were successful in efforts to shape the proposed rule including not requiring onboard equipage for our members at our flying sites."
That's great, but what about all the other non AMA members who don't fly at AMA sites? The backyard flyers. The experimentals, and makers and those wanting to push the limits of RC. The people who got their ham radio license to fly RC farther. Wasn't the AMA supposed to be for them too? The email says so.
"We will continue to advocate for our members and the hobby by addressing the concerns in the proposal."
Sounds much more like the AMA is trying to secure their future by forcing people to use their fields.
I understand the basis for the new rules and the intent to prevent malicious use, but I fear it's just going to push many people to fly illegally. Too many rules, too complicated, too many conflicting sources of information on the FAA website. I still believe the best and safest thing the FAA/AMA could do is public education. Why force people to study and go take a written test? Nobody wants to take a test to go fly their new UAS around the park. And if he/she doesn't take it then, why would he/she take it at all?
To summarize. The new FAA rules are very restrictive, and AMA is solely working for itself. Eventually leading to the death of the hobby and the death of the AMA.

ira d

You have to understand that ever since the FAA begin talks with the AMA about regulating models the AMA has been trying to create a law or condition that would force modelers into the AMA's membership.
Everything the AMA does is geared to increasing membership they are not interested in gaining anything that will benefit the modeler that may be a non member. I really think that if
the AMA had worked toward getting less restrictions on model flying instead of conditions that would mandate membership we as a hobby would be better of.

Ken-h

My Feedback: (3)

Bingo!

jcmors

Agreed, also, ironically, my thought is that if our AMA had been working on less restrictions and more reasonable treatment of RC modelers in general that it would have in turn caused more people to want to become members, even those who don't need AMA fields to fly!

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Sorry jcmors I forgot to include the quote not in reply to your post.



Talk about a sickening sense of entitlement. We will not join or support your organization but you damd well are expected to spend money and effort to represent my wants. Horse pucky get off your lazy backside and do your own lobbying and while your at it develop some spine.

jcmors

FWIW, I AM an AMA member. My point is that without someone working on making the RC hobby available and reasonable for everyone, there will be a smaller pool of people to draw on that will want to or need to join our organization. Not everyone who flies RC will join the AMA, but if the regulatory structure of things becomes too overwhelming for anyone to even consider taking up the hobby then where will the percentage of those who become interested enough to join the AMA come from?

If we allow the government to continue to regulate us out of existence as a hobby, where will the future AMA members come from?

If no one advocates or attempts to protect the hobby, in general, then there are no potential members for the future. That is the point I was trying to make.

Not everyone joins the AMA immediately on becoming interested in the hobby, but if there is no more hobby, then there will be no one coming in to draw from for potential members in the future. When the only flying I can legally do becomes flying RC on a Sim, there will be absolutely no need to be a member of the AMA.

ira d

You make a excellent point and I agree that the way things are going I can see our hobby being regulated out of existence or to the point where it can easily be banned.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I'm going to have to say my opinion falls somewhere between the OP and Propworn. While I agree what the FAA is proposing is BS, I also think that it may have been even worse without the efforts of the AMA. I also think that non AMA members have helped bring this upon us. If we had a larger voice ( larger membership) it could have made a difference, AMA knew this long ago and started with their plea to add members. IMO if you did not and will not join AMA then to some degree you just sat on your behind and let this happen, you took power away from the only CBO fighting for us. Right now due to the membership numbers it was a David and Goliath situation and so far we are loosing. If this really does put a spur in your backside like it does me then do something about it other then vent on a forum. As for myself I have been an AMA member since 1977, I am a member of two local clubs and also the SIG NSRCA. I am currently in talks with my state Senator and we are working to schedule a demonstration at one of our local AMA club sites. I have provided him with locations of all the States flying sites and hobby shops as well as a fairly accurate number of how many people are employed in the hobby industry in our state. So far the talks are positive and he does plan to go to Congress to represnt Oregon modelers. Bottom line, if you are truly upset over this situation then join the fight!

FUTABA-RC

The 400 foot bubble ONLY applies to sUAS that plan to comply withe the RID requirement using the second method. Plus, all of this is a good 5 years out. So go fly and enjoy yourself. This has a long way to go before it is all sorted out and finalized.

init4fun

I think the bottom line for some people is that since they feel like the AMA was fighting for the AMA first and the hobby second , they were gonna refuse to participate in enabling the AMA to have an actual monopoly on any and all RC hobby flying . I have been an AMA member long enough to have a 5 digit AMA number , I've been around a while , and the whole "forced membership" thing was the first time I seriously and unequivocally disagreed with AMA policy . JC mores said it very very well , maybe if our organization had from the beginning been appearing to be trying to protect ALL RC aeromodeling rather than become gatekeeper to the RC skies , the good will alone VS appearing to be on a Hell bent power grab woulda brought em in in droves . We were gonna spend the lobbying money anyway , did the attempted power grab REALLY need to have to happen right when things were in heating up with the FAA/drone thing ? Water under the bridge now , and whose to say how different strategy may have played out , but the strategy chosen HAS produced a measure of alienation in some folks , as evidenced by the gent who opened this thread .

init4fun

In credit to ira d , he said the same thing as jcmors and I didn't want to leave out agreeing with his post as well .

goaliesbeware

I, as well as many others I'm sure, already emailed their state rep and plan on commenting on the FAA RFC.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I'm glad that we are able to disagree on the membership aspect and still be respectful to one another, thank you guys. That being said, I still feel that guys who refuse to join yet want to complain about the outcome don't have a leg to stand on. From my perspective it's like showing up at a potluck empty handed.

Now, do I think that everyone who flys model airplanes should be forced to join the AMA ? No I do not, that is IMO a personal choice and I nor anyone else has the right to tell you how to spend your money. Based on my experiences with AMA clubs and the life long friendships I have developed I HOPE that other guys would join and experience the positive side of being a member.

As Bill has said, we are still years away from what is being proposed now. There is still time IMO to influence some changes. If anyone has a better idea on how to accomplish those changes then to join the organization that is representing us and add your voice to the fight and contact your local goverment representatives then I would love to hear it. I think it would be a great thing if we could discuss solutions and move past who is to blame.

jcmors

I would have to agree that the AMA is the only organized group equipped at all to even attempt to put up a defense to what I can only see as an outright attack on our hobby.

I believe that one of the places where we, as hobbyists, are losing the war is in the arena of public opinion. The general public is exposed to the media and government hype regarding how dangerous our RC aircraft are. They don't know the truth. The general public has no idea about the 80 year history of safety RC modeling has. Where would they even see our side of this presented? All they know is that the media and our government is basically putting forth the concept that if they don't regulate us, manned aircraft will start falling from the skies. WE know this isn't true.

I'm at a loss as to exactly how to counteract public opinion and present the truth but I believe that needs to be at least one facet of our offensive against this ridiculous government overreach.

Thoughts?

larry@coyotenet

My Feedback: (21)

The problem with the FAA is not AMA members, read page 99 of the proposal.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

JCmors, I could not agree with you more. More times then not wen I tell somone that I fly R/C aircraft they have a mental picture of a drone. That's when the phone comes out and I show them some pictures. So how do we represent ourselves to the general public? I have to think that the loss of the neighborhood hobby shops has a small part in this, the loss of trade shows and clubs putting on open houses and mall shows as well. I think that we would agree that showing the positive side of our hobby to the general public in just about any means we can would be a good thing. When I was in California the two clubs that I has the most time in would have an open house each year. Here in Oregon it seems that is not happening. Something I will be looking into. I think our first step would be to mend the devide between modelers. We have a much better chance at success if we work together.

fliers1

We have local cable and 3 of us many years ago had no trouble getting on air. A local club usually gets a piece on a local channel when they have their 2 day public exhibition. Keep in mind, this is totally free. Many communities have other free media venues where they could show their club activities. It's still a mystery why AMA and MAAC couldn't find a way to go public on TV. How many small businesses does every community have that places ads?
Where there is a will, there's a way, that is getting the hobby out to the public maybe not what anybody really wants.Traxxas had a commercial at onetime. AMA could possibly be on with drone racing.
Thing is, one club member/instructor said that he really didn't want a never ending supply of beginners to teach. If one or two show up to the club for help, he said he will help them only on the one day a week his club set aside for training. Some say it's too expensive to place ads on tv. How much money are they losing on their magazines and government lobbying, among other expenses?

dionysusbacchus

My Feedback: (25)

There is no future in exempt AMA flying sites, the FAA looks at it as a temporary measure. No new flying fields can be added, not all will be approved, did not renew in the specific time specified? Your exempt status is terminated, all will be subject to cancellation at any time for any reason:


From page 173 of the RID NPRM

Quote: The FAA recognizes that UAS flying sites exist today without a significant impact on
aviation safety. As proposed in § 89.205, only a community based organization (CBO)
recognized by the Administrator would be eligible to apply for the establishment of a flying site
as an FAA-recognized identification area to enable operations of UAS without remote
identification within those areas. For clarification purposes, the concept of FAA-recognized
identification areas proposed in this rule is different and independent from the fixed-site concept
in 49 U.S.C. 44809(c)(1) and a fixed site would not automatically be approved as an FAA-recognized
identification area. From p 174 of the RID NPRM

Quote: The FAA is proposing to accept applications for FAA-recognized identification areas
within 12 calendar months of the effective date of a final rule. At the end of that 12-month
period, no new applications for FAA-recognized identification areas would be accepted. After
that date, the number of FAA-recognized identification areas could therefore only remain the
same or decrease. Over time, the FAA anticipates that most UAS without remote identification
will reach the end of their useful lives or be phased out. As these numbers dwindle, and as
compliance with remote identification requirements becomes cheaper and easier, the number of
UAS that need to operate only at FAA-recognized identification areas would likely drop
significantly. From pp 178-179 of the RID NPRM

Quote: D. Duration of an FAA-Recognized Identification Area

Under proposed § 89.225, the term of an FAA-recognized identification area would be 48
calendar months after the date the FAA approves the request for establishment of an FAA-recognized
identification area.

A person wishing to renew the establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area
would have to submit a request for renewal no later than 120 days before the expiration date. If a
request for renewal is submitted after that time but prior to the expiration date, the Administrator
could choose not to consider the request. Requests for renewal submitted after the expiration date
of the designation would not be considered by the Administrator.

E. Expiration and Termination

Unless renewed, an FAA-recognized identification area would be automatically cancelled
as of the day immediately after its expiration date.

Under proposed § 89.230(b)(1), if a CBO wanted to terminate an FAA-recognized
identification area prior to the expiration date, it would do so by submitting a request for
termination to the Administrator. Once the CBO has terminated an FAA-recognized
identification area, the CBO may not reapply to have that flying site reestablished as an FAA-recognized
identification area and that site would no longer be eligible to be an FAA-recognized
identification area. The FAA seeks comment on this approach.

Under proposed § 89.230(b)(2), the FAA would be able to terminate an FAA-recognized
identification area for any reason, including but not limited to a finding that the designation
could pose a risk to aviation safety, public safety, or national security or that the person who
submitted a request for establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area provided false or
misleading information during the submission, amendment, or renewal process. Once an FAA-recognized
identification area is terminated by the FAA, a CBO may not reapply to have the
associated flying site reestablished as an FAA-recognized identification area.

jcmors

The club I belong to also organizes a mall show locally to showcase the hobby. Seems like a small thing and such an activity by a club in a relatively small town may appear to be just a drop in the bucket, but 1000 small clubs doing something similar becomes a more effective outreach.

Agree on the concept of healing the divide though again, I'm not really sure how to go about doing that.

franklin_m

Interesting that the same people who talk of “mending things between modelers” are the very same ones who get modelers banned from modeling sites.

However, I strongly agree that AMA threw everyone under the bus to get these FAA recognized areas - a last hope to compel membership. It, likes the last, will fail. And I hope to do all I can to ensure it does. Non-AMA members outnumber members by over 4:1. FAA failed to include some $67 million in annual tithes to the CBO plus between $45 million to $90 million or more for club membership. That’s somewhere between $112 million and $157 million ANNUALLY that FAA did not factor, something that will get attention in their comment review. Of course the fix is simple, require such sites to allow anyone to fly w/o regard to membership status. These sites function not unlike public airports, and I’m not aware of any airport that requires membership in AOPA or ALPA to operate there.

But regardless, ultimately they will fail due to attrition. AMA has a difficult enough time getting clubs to submit info now. What’s going to happen when the POC changes and they don’t notify FAA? What happens when they don’t renew in time? And of course, what happens when they have repeated “spill outs” over other private property or crashes on land not owned, leased, or otherwise set aside for the club - and the neighbors complain to FAA? All become justifications for termination for “cause.”

AMA is just not that good. Administratively or disciplined operationally to make this successful. They don’t enforce their own rules, and this is going to require strict compliance - for which they have no inclination or structure to do. And what happens? A few clubs here, a few clubs there, and quickly they drop below critical mass of those who “need” the club, and that giant sucking sound will be money leaving AMA.

There are are policy reasons the carve out is flawed, but I’ll reserve those for my NPRM comments or other letters. Honestly, I don’t see it surviving the comment period, but even if it does, attrition, sloppy paperwork, lack of attention to detail, and lack of operational discipline will all hand FAA the sticks to beat the AMA with their own request.

AMA threw everyone under the bus to make one last grab for mandatory membership. Yet the failed to heed the proverb: “Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it.”

NorfolkSouthern

This would make some good sense. Perhaps a club could charge a fee to help defray upkeep costs, but AMA membership should not be mandatory. That is the one thing that got me put off with the hobby: Mandatory AMA membership in order to remain in the club. I would also like to see the FRIA phaseout removed from the NPRM. Not everybody has a drone with GPS and the ability to upgrade to RID, but that shouldn't mean they can't fly their antiques as a "model airplane". Because that, essentially, is what a retired drone is.

ira d

There is no reason why the FAA should not allow almost anywhere to be a designated flying site unless it's a place that would interfere with full scale operations. If a person owns land that is suitable to fly
at and they are not over flying their neighbors property they should be able to fly there without any remote ID equipment installed on their models.

I think if the FAA is allowed to continue to impose restrictions on RC flying it will kill the hobby in a few years and I am beginning to think that may be their end game especially for the larger faster
and more technology advanced aircraft that the average person has excess to today.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

This would bring us back to the insurance delema and how to convince land owners to trust that the non members have and are maintaining their other form of liability insurance. Then we have the issue of flying sites on county lands where it is the county that requires all members using the site to be AMA members, again for the insurance. AMA membership although secondary ( primary if you buy homeowners insurance that does not include model airplane coverage ) is easily verifiable and the premium/membership is paid in one annual payment so there is no worry about someone letting their policy lapse.

Tipover

My Feedback: (44)

The AMA could simply offer to sell FRIA users insurance to non AMA members. I don't think the FAA could bulk at requiring site users to be insured.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Not sure I follow. Most members ( non competitive pilots ) are doing just that, buying insurance from the AMA. Calling it a membership does not change that most guys are buying insurance and not taking advantage of the membership benifits.