the-plumber

Hi Dave -

I'd like you to address what I refer to as AMA's "You can't do that" mind-set, which appears to have been the driving force behind many onerous and ill-advised rule changes over the last decade or so.

For example, giant models, jets, and technological improvements.

It seems to me AMA is corporately afraid of giant models and of jets, and simply terrified of giant jet models to the extent that they cannot be flown under AMA auspices.

We're worried about models over 55 pounds RTF, but a model weighing anything less is not subject to any sort of inspection or second-party scrutiny prior to it's being flown under the AMA umbrella, never mind that the insurance numbers (which do seem to be the controlling factor in all of AMA's decisions and rulings of late) indicate that the major risks for AMA are associated primarily with .60-sized sport models.

We're worried silly about jet fuel burning if a jet model crashes so we restrict the on-board fuel to the extent that the model can only be flown for a few minutes, while at the same time utterly ignoring the explosive nature of gasoline and have no restrictions whatsoever on the amount of gasoline on board one of those models. I spent my time in a silver suit on a flight deck, and I am painfully aware of the differenece between getting jet fuel to light up and getting gasoline to light up.

Hot on the heels of the magnificent achievement of Maynard Hill and the STARS team last year came the prohibition against the very sort of equipment needed to get TAM 5 across the pond, and very soon after that AMA was patting it's collective back for "helping" in the record flight, and then Mr. Brown appologized for and tried (unsuccessfully, in my mind) to justify the new restrictions. Maynard has said that had the new prohibitions been in place he would have never have tried.

We seem to be so afraid that FAA, TSA, et al are going to land on aeromodeling in the worst way that we have forgotten our purpose, that of furthering development of model aviation in this country. I don't see AMA doing anything meaningful with respect to educating The Fed about the basic differences between a bunch of rag heads bent on using UAVs to blow up infrastructure and a pack of gear-head modelers bent on getting their pride and joy back on the runway with all the parts in close formation.

These are hot topics today, but not very long ago the hot topic was contact combat models, combat engine sizes, giant scale racing, etc, etc, etc.

The "Rule 9" issue was nothing short of a fiasco, IMHO, and did more to alienate members than any topic I can think of in recent years. I don't fly 3D models and find them boring, but the folks who can and do fly 3D models are purportedly _still_ mad about that edict.

We seem to be in a modus operandi which prohibits anything new until the membership puts up a fuss big enough to force Muncie to retreat from previous rulings.

I see AMA as having abdicated it's position of leadership in model aviation, not only here at home but in the world arena of aeromodeling, in favor of the posture normally associated with an ostritch.

I know that there has been some improvement in theses areas of late, but only because of ex post facto member complaints about those very same restrictions.

I am concerned that AMA has taken the position of prohibiting a priori any aeromdeling activity which someone, anyone, finds remotely risky, and only after considerable lobbying by the membership are prohibitions which were ill-considered from the start ultimately rescinded.

I'm not one for buzz-words, but it does seem to me that "pro-acvite" fits the bill here. AMA's apparent pro-active stance today seems to be that of ever increasing numbers of rectrictions and prohibitions at a time when we need to focus on getting The Fed on our side rather than hope we'll not be lumped in with those same lunatic rag-heads out of ignorance regarding our hobby on the part of The Fed.

What would you do to change the direction AMA has apparently taken, and get the organization going on a path toward leadership and (gasp) encouraging development of new modeling technologies, versus hiding it's collective head in the sand and hoping that The Fed doesn't arbitrarily legislate our hobby out of existence ?

Dave Mathewson

Hi Fred,
I'm leaving for the weekend but I'll be writing a response to your thoughts and will post it on Monday. For you guys in the warmer climates I'm heading to northern NY State for a club event in Old Forge and then onto Tupper Lake for a multi-club event there. The high temp in Tupper is forecast to be 56 degrees on Saturday. And you wonder why the size of District 2 is shrinking?
Dave

quint-rcu

My Feedback: (24)

Hi Dave,

Fred hit my thoughts on the head and also look forward to your reply. It's about time for a change at headquarters (and district V).

quint

BRUTUS122

My Feedback: (14)

Anxiously awaiting a reply as well.

rcmiket

Hey plumber, I've been watching this waiting for this question. I started to ask it but just could put it as well as you did. Thanks-Mike

Dave Mathewson

Hi Fred,
In the interest of brevity (and I’m afraid that isn’t going to happen), let’s assume I agree with the majority of your comments. In reading your letter I got the impression that the bottom line is that we are all shooting for the same ultimate goal. A safer modeling environment, a method to reduce liability risks, to not stifle the creative ambitions of some of our members, and protecting our ability to enjoy model aviation without over-restrictive government regulations. The difference comes in the methods we may be using to achieve those goals. If you read what I’ve written in other places I think you’ll see that I would like to see us make a shift in the way we approach these areas. More often than not I see us reacting to some perceived risk that has come to our attention. I think we’d be better off if, instead of always trying to put out some fire somewhere, we were a little more pro-active (to use your word) in our approach.

You question some of the restrictions placed on certain disciplines while ignoring the risk associated with others. Specifically you mention large models, turbines, and giant scale racing. I think a natural reaction when creating rules for something new that we have little or no experience in leads to restrictive rules. We tend to err on the safe side. But I think it’s important, especially during the early years, to continually review the guidelines created for a discipline, and modify them as necessary. Actually, this has happened a couple times recently. In giant scale racing it became apparent a couple years ago that these events were being run safely and the perceived risk wasn’t as great as initially thought. Because of this we eliminated the requirement for the organizers of these events to carry an umbrella insurance policy on top of their AMA coverage. The turbine regulations were reviewed recently and, in some areas, relaxed because in some cases advancements in technology have made a rule obsolete. By constantly reviewing where we are we can “tweak” the guidelines to take into account actual fact instead of anecdotal accounts of risk.

More than once I guess I have voted in favor of creating some new rule then, after having the opportunity to give it more thought, came to the conclusion that I made a mistake. I think this problem is created when the issue is brought directly before the Council. Often an issue gets put on the table at an EC meeting, we give the issue a cursory glance then vote on it. Often there is a certain incident that caused the issue to be brought up. We focus on the issue, while sometimes not looking at the bigger picture, then react to the issue. What happens far too often is that we end up impacting some style of flying that we never intended be included in the discussion. The solution is to make better use of our committees and our members that are experts in the discipline. I spent quite a bit of time with Don Lowe over the weekend talking about these issues. Don is Chairman of AMA Safety Committee. There is no person in modeling that deserves more respect than Don Lowe. There is no person in modeling more concerned over safety than Don. The one word he used repeatedly in the conversation was “reasonable”. Don’s theory is that if we keep our guidelines reasonable there is a better chance that our members will fly within those guidelines and help ensure their friends do the same. The result would be reduced risk. Instead of simply restricting an activity why not work to create a reasonable set of rules that would allow the activity to be conducted safely? The only arm we have in enforcing the Safety Code is through our members. If they think a rule is unrealistic I find they tend to ignore it. But I think most of our members, if they find a guideline even somewhat reasonable, are responsible enough to work within the rules even if it requires slight modifications to their style of flying to comply. This will do more to reduce risk than to simply create a rule to restrict something when we know the rule is being ignored anyhow.

The autonomous flight issue is again one of reacting to a perceived threat. At the time there was a serious concern that we had to create this definite black and white line between model airplanes and UAVs. Certainly the restriction on autonomous flight did that. We need to look and decide if that threat is still there. But I think the issue goes deeper than that. Part of AMA’s mission is to promote scientific and technological advancements in model aviation. Where do we draw the line? I think most would agree that AMA shouldn’t support unrestricted autonomous flight. Even those members involved in the activity agree that there needs to be some guidelines. But, let’s take this a step further. Do we think that for one second because AMA has a rule restricting autonomous flight that it’s not happening? We need to ask ourselves if it would be in AMA’s and our members’ best interest to at least open a dialogue with these modelers. Instead of simply ignoring the fact that autonomous flights with models is going on wouldn’t it be better for us if we knew exactly to what extent?

I think our relationship with government agencies is improving. I can’t disagree that a couple years ago we were again reacting to the perceived threat of restrictions being placed on model aviation. We approached these agencies with the “we need to go put out this fire” mentality. I don’t know that we knew back then exactly what the Feds had on their minds. I think now we have a better picture of that. My perception is that while they may be watching us out of the corner of their eye, we may not be their primary concern. My impression is that they are more concerned today over commercial concerns than modeling activities. Even the president wrote in his column that the FAA’s concern was model airplanes flying at 10,000 plus feet, not the day-to-day activities we find at most flying fields. But we have to ask ourselves if the FAA really perceived that type of activity as being synonymous with conventional model aviation. If they do then, you’re right, we need to do a better job of educating them as to what it is exactly that we do. Maybe this is where we should be creating that black line.

I don’t know that I can point to any one thing I would try to instill in the organization to change its direction. The bottom line is that it may be time for a minor shift in philosophy. It’s awful easy to simply take a “you can’t do that attitude”. It takes effort to create solutions that will address realistic concerns without alienating the membership. I think we have an obligation to make the effort.
Dave

the-plumber

If nothing else, I'd sure like to see the 'pro-active' rule-making swing back toward center from the far left where it appears to have been for some time.

Thanks for responding so quickly and as always, good luck this Fall.

quint-rcu

My Feedback: (24)

How refreshing to hear some common sense! Maybe there is ideed a change... Good luck.


quint

Bump Post

UP

MustangFan

From a cursory view of articles in the AMA mag., it seems that the AMA is more interested in keeping insurance cost down and profits up, than what is the best arrangements for its members. I know this is labeled a non-profit org., but there are many ways to show zero profits. Also, savings are not neccessarly passed on to the members.

If you have many "rules" pertaining to "safety", it is a better sell to the insurance companys that you are being pro-active at keeping claims down ( and more reasons not to pay claims ).

I wish I could say I trust the AMA to be looking out for it's members.
But " what we have here is ... a failure to communicate "

The AMA could be a better RC member representative, and has much room for improvement.
The cost of belonging is not prohibitive, and the insurance preceived is a good sales point for obtaining land use.

Other than the insurance ... it has little value.

Dave Mathewson

Hi Mustang,
I think it's fair to say that we're interested in keeping our insurance costs as low as possible, which in turn obviously reduces expenses. Not as an excuse, but more of an explanation I can tell you that we're all a little edgy over our insurance situation. As you can see from reviewing the annual audits in the member's only section on the AMA Website premiums for our liability policy alone have risen from under $250,000 to just shy of a million dollars in the last three years. Add to that the fact that year before last we went down to a matter of a few days before policy expiration before we even had an offer on the table to consider.

I write in my campaign statement that I believe we've been letting our insurance concerns drive the direction of the Safety Code. I agree that we need to be pro-active in keeping claims down but I think we might be able to accomplish the same thing by creating a viable loss prevention program. This might even work better than creating certain rules that we know are being ignored anyhow.

You say that "AMA could be a better RC member representative, and has much room for improvement." Let me ask you this. List three things, in order of priority to you, that you think AMA should be doing to make it a better value to our members?
Dave

typicalaimster

Dave,
Thanks for responding to Fred's post. It has brought insight to your views on new technology and what direction you want to steer the AMA in. From what it sounds like to the AMA, "autonomous" flight is still a small percentage of the AMA member base. As technology develops allowing us to fly "under the hood", I feel more and more UAV/RPV projects will develop.

I think the big stink is going to come down to two things. Fully autonomous flight (UAV) vs semi-autonamaous flight (RPV).

Let's first look at the definition of Autonomous:

au·ton·o·mous adj.

1. Not controlled by others or by outside forces; independent: an autonomous judiciary; an autonomous division of a corporate conglomerate.
2. Independent in mind or judgment; self-directed.
3.
1. Independent of the laws of another state or government; self-governing.
2. Of or relating to a self-governing entity: an autonomous legislature.
3. Self-governing with respect to local or internal affairs: an autonomous region of a country.
4. Autonomic.

By definition this states I start up my UAV and turn it loose. In my opinion by nature this sort of aircraft is not very safe. There is no way for me to communicate with it. I can not alter its programming an any way. However this could go under the category of a free flight model aircraft. The AMA with the help from the FAA is going to have to draw a VERY clear line of what is safe. I agree that FULLY AUTONOMOUS flight should not be attempted by a modeler over long distances. I can also see size and distance regulations coming into play here. If the AMA and FAA came down and said.. "Any free flight model aircraft which contains electronic devices which manipulate or alter course of the aircraft is a UAV and can not be flown" I would fully agree with it. I would not hesitate voting in such a ruling. There is nothing stopping this aircraft from endangering myself or others.

On the flip side of things, there is Semi-Autonomous (RPV).... While there is no definition in the dictionary about this, the concept is very simple, model airplanes by nature are semi-autonomous. With the flip of a switch, or some sort of command, the aircraft is under my control, it goes in the direction I command it to go. With a semi-autonomous aircraft my telemetry is my eyes and my ears. I know what and where my aircraft is going by watching the screen. I may not be able to see it over the horizon, but I can still alter its course of travel. If the AMA proposed "Any model operating past visual range or over the horizon must be equiped with with failsafe equipment. When activated the failsafe must capable of returning the aircraft to original point of origin. Failsafe must be activated upon loss of signal from transmitting station." I would once again vote yes for such a ruling. At this point the pilot would still be in control via RF. The pilot has also made an attempt to return the aircraft to a safe location and regain control in a unlikely event (Failsafe). Also in the unlikely event the aircraft has returned to a 'safe' location where it can crash (Return Home). In the case of RPV's if the signal from the transmitting station is lost, have the aircraft go into a failsafe mode. This may be something as simple as return to last known waypoint and hold for instructions. This isn't much different than a failsafe on a PCM receiver. Most RPV cases it might be a out of range problem. When the RPV goes back into range control is regained, failsafe is then turned off. One autopilot out on the market will fly a daisy pattern over a waypoint. It will do so till it's turned off.

I agree that flying at very high altitude poses a threat to full scale aircraft and should not be attempted without authorization from the FAA. However high altitude flights of balloons by amateur radio operators are attempted on a regular basis. While most of these are done in remote areas away from possible air traffic.... These balloons loft around with no control of direction. There is no way to prevent these from hitting a full scale aircraft. A model airplane attempting to reach high altitude usually flies within a box centered around the ground operator. With this in mind I feel the AMA should help establish some basic guidelines for amateur RPV operators to follow. These could be a combined effort of the FAA, AMA and RPV operators. Such a rule of "No aircraft shall fly over 1000' without written concent of both the AMA and FAA" can be ammended in this case.

There is also great deal of information I feel is lacking from the AMA and FAA. The simple fact of how to achieve FAA clearance to fly these RV experiments. The other is where to fly to test RPV's. Perhaps the AMA can work with the FAA on establishing some sort of designated spot, per region, for these experiments to take place? If a sanctioned and approved site was placed in my region, I'd be happy to travel to this location without hesitation. Providing a simple FAQ or fact sheet on the AMA's web site would be a excelent source of information. Such things of who to contact, what information to provide, basic answers to questions someone might have.

Has the AMA thought about working with the FAA on granting permits or licenses for amateur RPV pilots?. This can follow the same format the FCC has with ARRL. There will be the argument of those that want to fly RPV's should get a pilots license directly from the FAA... However let's look at ARRL's example once again... Some people achieve a technical license in order to use a HAM radio. Perhaps they want a Futaba transmitter on the amateur frequency range. In most cases many do not want to become a full commercially licensed radio station, they just want to talk on the air. Other operators gain higher class licenses to talk over satellites or use other frequencies. Same principle can be applied to amateur RPV pilots. In our case having an AMA card in their wallet this states they understand the basic rules of model aviation (technical license in the ARRL example). They fly at a sanctioned field that adhears to the rules of the AMA (using designated frequencies for my license class in the ARRL example). By gaining a higher class license a RPV pilot can do more things. Same thing can apply for a field. Some fields may only honor a certain class license due to airspace restrictions (under 1000'). Others fields that are more remote can host higher class license (above 1000'). Higher class licensed pilots can take a test to demonstrate their understanding of the rules. If need be I'm sure the AMA can charge more for a higher class qualification. If someone put a $500 camera and $300 of telemetry in their plane.. I don't think $50-$100 more a year to the AMA is going to hurt them.

Currently high altitude is on the FAA's scope. How long will it be before we're flying "Up there with the big boys" and "Along with the big boys"? As technology develops it's only a matter of time before more cross country flights are attempted. The Transatlantic flight was the first example of such a flight. While the range of one telemetry unit is about 7 miles, GSM/GPRS technology is spreading across the nation. These cell phones and devices are becoming smaller and have the ability to exchange information over the internet at higher rates of speed. Such a device will allow an amateur RPV pilot to fly over the horizon from their home computer. The first attempts might be from field to field. Later they progress from city to city, then state to state.

Much like members of ARRL, we take pride in ourself and police ourself. When the AMA asked Giorgio and Simone to stop high altitude flights they did. When AMA asked us to stop people flying high altitude we responded. RPV pilots are very proud of their accomplishment and want to push the envelope of what a model can do. RPV equipment is not the cheapest thing in the world. Anyone that is willing to purchase over $5000 in telemetry and equipment is very proud of what they are doing. They are not out there to give the hobby a bad name. Like many of us they are out having fun.

You mention the commercial aspect of RPV. For those venturing into the commercial aspect of UAV / RPV aviation, there are commercial rules. Those guidelines should be followed. Once again we can reflect back on ARRL. If you want a commercial radio station, you pay commercial rates. As amateurs we are doing this as a hobby. There are just some of us that want to go above and beyond normal flying at the field.

"Instead of simply ignoring the fact that autonomous flights with models is going on wouldn't it be better for us if we knew exactly to what extent?" I agree, let's take this thing off the back burner and move forward before it becomes a bigger issue. RPV's can be a positive thing for both modelers and the AMA. We need to look at the positive things can bring us. I've read several negative posts on RCU about RPV. Many of those posts include statements on the lines of "go be commercial pilot and get insurance if you want to fly RPV's", or "Is this what Dave Brown wants to ban".. I've even hear things on the line of "Funny how Dave Brown landed the Transatlantic flight, now he wants to ban it". We need to be more positive about this issue. Like many I have no desire to become a full scale pilot. I just want to fly my model from a first person point of view. At one point I may want to fly VFR from my field to another field 15 miles up the road. Using GPS I could fly fake IFR from point to point. I want to do this in the safest fashion possible. I've looked air charts, several satellite photos, topographic maps, anything to create the safest route. However, with the sound of the AMA's standing on such attempts, this research may be in vein.

As winter arrives and I turn to building out my RPV instead of flying.. I sit here and think.. When I head out this Spring with my RPV in the back of my Jeep... Should I leave my AMA card at home, or bring it with me and be proud of what the AMA has become. If the AMA turns their back on me and my research, I have no choice but to become a rebel like everyone else.

--Scott

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Scott,
Why don't you e-mail your question to Dave Brown, since he doesn't go on line, and let us know his response. I'm sure it will be quite different from Dave M's.
BRG,
Jon

dave jones

Guys
I just received my 2004 AMA Election Ballot in the mail and I have cast my vote for Mr. Dave Mathewson for AMA President.
If you are currently involved with or are interested in Autonomous and or video video enhanced flight or just feel that the advancements of technology in model aviation should not be stifled then please cast your vote for Mr. Mathewson, he has promised to work with us to get the AMA safety code changed to allow for the advancements of technology in model aviation.
We all know where we now stand with Mr. Brown so the only way that we will ever get the AMA safety code changed is to start by changing the AMA's administration so please cast your vote for Mr. Mathewson for AMA President.
This is your voice and is the only way that you have of speaking out and letting the AMA know how you feel.
Thanks
Dave Jones
AUAV

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

Yes, It's time to recharge the AMA!!!

F4u5

My Feedback: (81)

Hey. my ballot looks like Red's