bps

My Feedback: (3)

Well put! Like it or not it seems to be the best option and AMA has always been about model aviation. No one likes change but this is the way it is. I always have and will continue to support AMA as long as they have my best interests at heart, and I belive they do.

8178

My Feedback: (17)

http://www.modelaircraft.org/news/ama-faa.aspx

KidEpoxy

Warbird-
you seen the ballot return counts from the last few AMA elections?
20000 sigs may be a stretch of what AMA can put together

warbird addict

I Absolutely agree!

The inescapable fact of the matter is that having a representing voice in gov'tcosts money and without it you are doomedto your fate,take theNRA for example without them we would without question havelost the constitutional right to own and bear arms aLONG time agoand that money came in the form of membership PERIOD,this isno different, with membership comes a forum to have our concerns heard and represented accordingly by like mindedadvocates acting on our behalf.
If anyone feels like the AMA is not properly representing them then they as a group need to take a proactive approach andput their concerns along with a roster ofnames andmembership #'s on paper and send it to the AMA expressing their concerns in orderto have their "collective" voices heard and acted upon.
We need to supporttha AMAwith continued and growingmembership and keep them informed with continuedfeedback that correctly expresses our concerns and put our trust in them to act in our best interests if we are to avoid becoming victims ofa beaurocracy that quite simply putcould care less whether or notyou fly your "rich boy" rctoy airplane and rubber stamp rule it into extinction for no other reason than to get the paperwork off their desk.
If you are not supporting the AMAandcollectivelyspeaking up don't b!tch about not being heard when the poop hits the fan and your $15,000 rc jet that you can no longer flybecomes a static model that makes really cool jet like noises and never leaves mother earth

warbird addict

And membership/petition sigscome from Where?
anything shy of an overwhelming show of support/membership will fall well shy of being recognized and or respected
as having any voice at all, question is what are we as individuals doing to make sure that we are recognized as group with a
voice that is well represented, I dunno about anybody else but to me $54 is cheap enough.
We spend thousands on an rc aircraft another $54 to know that there is somebody out there doing everything they can to make sure I can continue
to fly it without ridiculously prohibitive restictions is a fair trade in my book

KidEpoxy

400'
55lb
No Turbines
might not seem rediculous to the guys buying .40-60 ARFs and have been flying well with in AC91-57 already

What part on the AMA-exempted restrictions are rediculous to you?
The No Metal Props part?
The Model Aircraft shall yield the right of way to all manned aircraft part?
The Model Aircraft will not be flown at an airspeed that would cause the aircraft to inadvertently leave the prescribed maneuvering area part?

of 3.2 & 3.3
what part #'s are so rediculous to the .40 ARF crowd or the PF guys?
Its just classic Divide & Conquor.
You will have a hard time rallying the troops to stand up and get motivated for
'those few guys' that fly turbines ( thanx waiver system) or
'those few guys' that fly 55+ planes (hey look, its our buddy the waiver again)
and you certainly cant count on the PF/PPP masses to defend them (or even vote )

WestCoastFlyer

My Feedback: (1)

I hope your crystal ball isn't correct, but yes I can see the possibility of the federal government licensing RC fliers. Judging by some of the flying going on out there, a license examination may not be such a bad idea lol.

I seriously doubt it'll go that far. The FAA has had a great, common sense aproach up until now.

Twenty years ago when I was learning RC we sometimes flew off a private, active full size runway. On any given Saturday afternoon at least one helicopter or small plane would land at that airstrip. You want nerve wracking when you have low RC flight time... But it was always fine, there was ample time to land your plane when you heard or saw aircraft in the pattern or on approach. And obviously you'd simply purposefully crash your RC plane to avoid any chance of collision with full size aircraft.

Anyway, it simply proves RC and full size can be in the same place at the same time. I'm not recommending it, proposing it or offering it as a point of discussion, just stating I've experienced it - and as one person noted there never has been a mid-air between an RC airplane and a full size, has there? Think about the millions of hours of RC airplane operation and we'd all agree that's a pretty darn good safety record.

Common sense has prevailed up until now, right? And the FAA has had a common sense approach until now, so I'm hoping and assuming it will stay that way.

I've been critical of some aspects of the AMA, but obviously this is one issue where it's good to be an AMA member. In this instance the AMA is representing the best interests of general membership, therefore definitely worth supporting.

edited for spelling

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

One minor nit pic or two.

One R/C idiot mananged to hit the Goodyear blimp, on purpose, a number of years back.

Also, there has been at least one midair between a hang glider and an R/C sailplane at Torrey Pines (slope soaring models and man carrying aircraft together is a special and unsual circumstance, though)

I agree about our overall safety record and I have no doubt the AMA held that statistic up at every opportunity. There are around 7 knownanddocumentedmodel aircraft related fatalities in the US that have happened over the last45 years or so. I think that makes us a lot safer than golf, at least...

WestCoastFlyer

My Feedback: (1)

Nitpicking can be a good thing. You've shown two instances. I wasn't certain, which is why I used a question mark in my statement.

warbird addict

I didn't say that I disagreed with the AMA rules currently in place what Imeant tosay was that if we don't support them with our membership dollars we will more than likely
end up with ridiculously prohibitive restrictions set in motion by another agency that will apply to all of us with no means to fight back.
you said it yourself divide and conquer without somebody like the AMA in our corner, whats to stop them from targeting us the general rcflyernext.
In my opinion the price of an annual AMA membership is worth it if it means that there is group of like minded people representing us so that this does not happen
anytime in the near future.
Once big brother gets involvedin any way at all that isunchallengedin the rule making process it always winds being a slow and never ending subtle erosion of what used to be a simple freedom
before you even realize it's happening.

KidEpoxy

Quick Q&A and watdahelizzat for all involved-

Q: Is a 2lb 60mph model safe to fly within 3miles of an airport?
A: Yes, if it is electric

per 3.3.5, ELECTRIC makes a 2lb 60mph model safe to other aircraft ????????????????
watdahelizzat

8178

My Feedback: (17)

warbird addict

yeh and the wal-mart air hog ones at that

704hank

My Feedback: (1)

What is going to happen to C/L? Most of them
do over 100 mph!

s3nfo

My Feedback: (14)

Huh?????

My sanctioned by AMA field where we fly turbines and 55 lb airplanes is 1 mile from the runway at MCAS Miramar....... SUAS draft does nothing to change our status, so where did this off the wall question come from?

abel_pranger

Hey Jerry-

You answered you own question so I guess that makes it rhetorical, no?

Abel

btw, can't wait for some twit with a sharp blue pencil to tell an AMAAVPthat model flying fields aren't sanctioned

KidEpoxy

S3Info
uh... from SUAS 3.3.5?

Did the FAA suddenly get into the "Electric 2/60 is safe but Nitro 2/60 isnt " crowd,
or maybe some lame excuse for safety makes quiet planes less likely to hazzard full size aviation.

Is there any wonder where 2/60 Electric Only came from?

I am embarassed as an American to have the FAA entertain the notion
that its ok to fly 2/60 in XXX proximity to full size Aviation,
but nitro planes of the exact same performance and activity are to be prohibited



<edit: oops, its 3.3.6>

abel_pranger

uh... from SUAS 3.3.5?

Did the FAA suddenly get into the "Electric 2/60 is safe but Nitro 2/60 isnt " crowd,
or maybe some lame excuse for safety makes quiet planes less likely to hazzard full size aviation.

Is there any wonder where 2/60 Electric Only came from?

I am embarassed as an American to have the FAA entertain the notion
that its ok to fly 2/60 in XXX proximity to full size Aviation,
but nitro planes of the exact same performance and activity are to be prohibited
[/quote]

Now, now, KE............it's just possible that some non-modeler on the sUAS ARCwas concerned that you might be inclined to use use tetranitromethane in your fuel (ps, Iwanted to try that but the only supplier Icould find is in Canada......anybody know where I can buy American?). That's a rocket fuel oxidizer that has a propensity for exploding violently when mixed with organic fuel compounds, not to mention being carcinogenic.... but wait, maybe that's the problem.......if it blows up in the path of a manned aircraft it could be a cancer hazard to its occupants. Same goes for gaseous boosts and metal props......there could be some tie-in to creating a hazard to navigation by full-scale aircraft...........whatever that might be escapes me but whatever it is can't happen if your model has electric power...........I think..........nobody sells metal props for electric powered model airplanes do they? Whatever, while this may be confusing to us hoi polloi, trust that our AMA is doing what is best for us members, others that have an interest in model aviation .....well maybe not so much for them there heathens that don't belong to AMA........, and the betterment of all mankind. And do heed the admonishment in AMA's broadcast Email "While there may be other sources of ARC information available to you, the only true source for accurate information is Model Aviation and AMA Web site." Anything you read here in RCUis bravo sierra, including this post and yours. Greg Hahn was right, but a little shortsighted............we are all Bottomfeeders. Welcome to our fraternity........except for red.

Abel

edit: tried to correct for format, gave up. This new editor is something shi.........er.........different.

KidEpoxy

Its been a  while,
but I recall the walk around on the c152 had me inspect the prop,
and that sucker was METAL!
Has anyone alerted the FAA on this

bps

My Feedback: (3)

Well put! I support AMA because they do look out for the majority of modelers. My post came off more negative than I thought it did after re reading it several times. I miss the old days but fact of the matter is they are gone forever and unless we collectively address the issues with forethought and common sense our flying days are over and that makes sense too! I can see some fools trying to fly with full scale and I for one have piloted a full scale and had a modeler flying close to my aircraft. Not exactly what one would like to see and this has no place in model aviation.

Most importantly dialog is good and so is debate! Opens our thoughts to concepts we may not have considered, sure has mine since my origional post. Thanks for all the responses.

bkdavy

My Feedback: (1)

Just for factual accuracy, I visited the headquarters of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) last year. One of our club members is a VP over there. He showed me several pictures of full scale private aircraft that had collided with model airplanes. Luckily, none of the collisions resulted in loss of the full scale aircraft, but the risk is real.

Unfortunately, there are many people out there that are not playing by the rules that have been established. This is whats driving the FAA, and why the ARC is recommending two parts of the rule- one for those that will follow AMA, and one for those that won't.

Our field is outside the 3 nm radius from our local airport (normally uncontrolled). Many of the pilots that fly from there are aware of our field, and often come out and circle our field a few times if people are flying. Yes it drives us a little crazy, and we stay well away from them. But it does help prove we can peacefully coexist in the same airspace as long as we follow the rules.

Brad

rcmiket

"Unfortunately, there are many people out there that are not playing by the rules that have been established. This is whats driving the FAA, and why the ARC is recommending two parts of the rule- one for those that will follow AMA, and one for those that won't."

Huh?The ones that aren't playing by the rules will not stop just because there's more rules. Take gun ownership as a examplecriminals don't register guns. I read the proposed recommendations and didn't see how the "one for those that follow the AMA, and ones that won't"
Mike

s3nfo

My Feedback: (14)

I'm typing slowly, because I see you're having trouble following.....

SUAS 3.3.5 does not prohibit nitro, planes in excess of 2 lbs or planes in excess of 60 mph within 3 miles of an airport if you are flying at an established field that follows an "established organizations" safety code. We (the club members), the Base Operations Commander and the FAA expect no (zero, none, nada, zilch) changes in the operations of R/C aircraft at MCRF Miramar R/C Flyers club field, one mile from the runway at MCAS Miramar from the implementation of the SUAS rules.
If you are flying at an establishedflying sitethat has an organizationally approved safety code in place, there should be zero impact on your operations.

I expect there will be increased scrutiny to establishing new flying sites within 3 miles, but I don't expect SUAS regs to stop establishment of clubs (nitro, fast and heavy airplanes included) within the 3 mile zone.


Edit:

OK, I was wrong, we do expect some impact to our field. SPAWARS and NG occassionally use our field to test fly some of their small UAS's and as commercial UAS operators they will now come under theSUAS rules and willno longer be able to test fly there under the "hobbiest" rules.

KidEpoxy

S3
my bad

3.3.6 is the pure garbage electric exceptions <page me="" with="" messed="" split=""></page>.

Point is not that AMA is exempt from FAA garbage,
but that the electric proximity stuff in 3.3.6 is a bunch of steaming hooey,
and just what muncie based gang gave them the idea to use 2/60 Electrics for any diferentiation in the first place.


What, are you going to defend 3.3.6 and say 2lb 60mph planes are safe near full size,
but only the quiet ones... loud 2/60's are unsafer near fulsize than electics of the same performance and activity?

Wher the heck did they get 2/60 Electics from
.... not Beoing or FMA

WestCoastFlyer

My Feedback: (1)

[/quote]

Great post Abel, nice tongue in cheek humor.

OK, just speculating. Let's see a show of hands who think the AMA truly does not want federal regulations for hobby level RC ariplanes. I don't want them. None of the people posting in this thread want them and it probably won't happen.

However, if there were tight federal regulations and licensing based on AMA safety guidelines and membership, it stands to reason the AMA would benefit greatly due to positioning in the licensing process, thereby sustaining the long-term organizational stability of the AMA.