Silent-AV8R

It is sort of sad how with so little to say you resort to personal attacks for the sake of making a post. And it is a massive understatement to say that you have totally missed my point and my position. Oh well. It is amusing though how much you cannot stand hearing facts versus idle speculation and how your utter disdain for the AMA simply blinds you to anything that counters your world view. And it just gets flat wearisome reading posts that do nothing beyond make snide remarks about people who do not despise the AMA.

GerKonig

Obviously then, you have an interst in this stuff (uav). Why do you mention a medical if you do not need one to fly a full size, people carrying light sport aircraft? Or a full size glider? (under most conditions)
I thinkcommon sense will prevail. The problem is that there are parties thathave a lot on money on the line (UAV) that will tryto drag us into things wehave no reason to be dragged into. For one thing wealways keep visual contact with our models... Bad enough that we have a ot of traffic in some areas ofthe US, and we scan for traffic all the timewefly (full size). Now we share airspace with hard tosee, small, maybe camo paited, uavs w/nobody onboard looking out for traffic. Scary. Yes, this crap has to be regulated (uavs).
We need the AOPA and the AMA.Those are the voices that have a chance ofbeing heard. Individuals have no voice. I support both organizations. I am a AMA, IMAA member, and also a proud outlaw (been an part time outlaw for well over 2 decades).

Gerry

DadsToysBG

My Feedback: (35)

I never liked the word "outlaw" it denotes doing something wrong. but overall this is the group I'm appealing to to join the AMA to show strength in numbers. It doesn't make any difference  where you fly or even if your part of a club or not. It's the numbers that the AMA can be on the board with the FAA.
If it come to the point that we have to start writing letters, it would be great if you can include your AMA number. Dennis

KidEpoxy

Gerry-
"I think common sense will prevail."

I see you are unfamiliar with how the US government does things




Dad's-
"If it come to the point that we have to start writing letters"

But theres the rub,
Why would the AMA go into letter writing mode to protect what they are not losing?
The gist of what is coming out of Muncie to its members is
Dont worry, we will be fine when everyone else gets boned.

So when will this letter writing stage start
... while we are not worrying and being fine? 
When the feds put out some 400' AC that  AMA  should  work on changing?

When it becomes a crime to not join AMA?
( .... I really dont think that is what Muncie will call the last straw )


You say folks should join AMA to have effect to protect flying in America,
yet out of muncie we hear for members to not care that flying in America is getting reemed
and it is just coincidence that AMA is excluded from the reeming,...
we're not the ones on the trains to the camps so dont worry bout it

The time for action had already come.... decades ago, while the 400' cap was becoming entrenched.
What kind of apocalyse of public model flying does it take for AMA to have its members start to worry?


Dads, if you really wanted AMA to grow stronger,
take Muncies advice and just sit back and watch:
Once it becomes a crime to fly without AMA, AMA will get a tone of new members.
It will be full to look back in 20 years at a membership chart,
and see like 2500% spike the few years after the Community Org mandate regulations come out.
 

DadsToysBG

My Feedback: (35)

Kid, I just finished going thru the AMA rules on the 400ft ceiling. The only place i can find this is when you are flying within the 3 mile area of a controlled air space of a airport. they then recommend notifying the tower or airport manager. AMA 540-C
Sorry Kid but from my stand point after reading some of your posts you see bugger men every where. Conspiracy is everywhere you turn. The bad guys are out to get you. Like I said before, if all you fly is little electrics why do you care at all. Your statements and ranting really get old.
I'm just going to accept that you see the glass is half empty with a hole in it and i see a half full one. Dennis  

patrickegan

As a citizen: Call the FAA and tell them what you think, ask to speak withPeggy Gilligan associate administrator for aviation safety. Or email her at  [email protected]

Office of Public Affairs
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Room 908
Washington, DC 20591
(202) 267-3883<o></o>

After Hours: Operations Center(202) 267-3333<o></o>

<o> Or the UAPO</o>

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...ineering/uapo/

<o> </o>

The AMA will need to close in on the AOPA membership #’s tohave FAA administrator on the phone pull. 

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Look at all the new jobs these new regs will create?
Imagine driving around all day in your spiffy new uniform, going wherever your freq scanner takes you, to uphold the law making the skies safe for humanity once again.

The Toolman

Thats ama's version of it, thats not quite how the FAA has it worded.

Edit....that been said, I like ama's wording better


Ron

The Toolman

I've changed your post here to some more famous words of wisdom....hehe



Look at all the new jobs these new regs will create?
Imagine driving around all day in your spiffy new uniform, going wherever your freq scanner takes you, to uphold the law making the skies safe for all internet goers, if not humanity as a whole.



Ron

KidEpoxy

Dads-
and what about the folks that dont fly those little electrics your opinion allows?
Ever hear of a cox049 or Norvel074?
.36CL?
Free Flight old timers?

Your opinion has already sold out the model flying public, the many decades old cox049 in the park / schoolyard.
So I understand why you dont have a problem with others turning their backs on the model flying americans too.


however,
surely you must see that some folks have not yet abandoned the rights of their fellow modelers
and are willing to at least raise awareness of the impending doom
regardless of instructions from muncie to ignore the doom of the aeromodeling American public

Is it a conspiracy to point at that line from muncie and admit it is bad advice?
Is it a conspiracy to point at the lack of accomplishment by muncie in changing the fed AC 400' limit
given a couple decades to do so?
.... given they changed it internally <400'Comma> cause they knew it sukked, but not the AC for the "The Hobby"

I am not accusing Muncie of putting stupid nonAviation crud into the ARC part3 restrictions,
as some kind of indiana plot to have fed mandated AMA membership.

But I am pointing at the stupid nonAviation stuff there, and the way it is almost cut&paste from AMA SafetyCode, and wonder who the heck figured that in the world of accepted metal propellers (like c152 etc) the entire concept of metal propeller should be flatly totally banned for models? Or the insanity of claiming a 2/60 model is safer to Aviation if it is quiet.

It is not a conspiracy to ask where the heck that stupidity came from,
it would take folks claiming it came from AMA to make an AMA conspiracy theory possible... which it is not till we see who put the stupidity into the ARC section3.... at the moment its just educated folks got together and created stupid stuff and we just have to accept the stupidity cause muncie wants us to not worry bout it.

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

Obviously then, you have an interst in this stuff (uav). Why do you mention a medical if you do not need one to fly a full size, people carrying light sport aircraft? Or a full size glider? (under most conditions)
I thinkcommon sense will prevail. The problem is that there are parties thathave a lot on money on the line (UAV) that will tryto drag us into things wehave no reason to be dragged into. For one thing wealways keep visual contact with our models... Bad enough that we have a ot of traffic in some areas ofthe US, and we scan for traffic all the timewefly (full size). Now we share airspace with hard tosee, small, maybe camo paited, uavs w/nobody onboard looking out for traffic. Scary. Yes, this crap has to be regulated (uavs).
We need the AOPA and the AMA.Those are the voices that have a chance ofbeing heard. Individuals have no voice. I support both organizations. I am a AMA, IMAA member, and also a proud outlaw (been an part time outlaw for well over 2 decades).

Gerry


[/quote]

I do very much have an interest in UAV's. They keep me working, just as someone working in the model industry would be interested in models. However, I do recognize that open use of UAV's could and would have a severe impact on our modeling activities if that industry felt they had a need for more airspace, or decided that rules only intended for "formally" named UAV's were unfair and should be extended to modeling. Models aren't all that much different, right? I also have a very great interest in modeling since that's what I do for fun, and that modeling is what enabled my entry into the UAV field. I should't fail to mention that without modeling sUAV's would not be where they are today. Many standard modeling products have been, and are, used on sUAV's. A lot in the way of two strokegas engine improvements have come about due to the needfor better propulsion units for sUAV's.

Without question, use of UAV's needs to be regulated. The problem lies in how any new regulations are determined. Will they be determined by a working group where all the various interested parties have an equal voice and vote or will it be done where some parties have control and others are only invited out of courtesy? With the ARC, the modeling community didn't have much of a voice. Consider that those that are pushing for new regulations are entittes such as Northrup-Grumman, Boeing, General Atomics, the U.S. military, andU.S. law enforcement. Now toss in avionics manufacturing firms that would experience tremendous revenue growth from expanding the useof UAV's in U.S. airsapce. Just how much impact will we have as a divided special inteest group? Consider that just the UAVR&D budgetat Boeing likely exceeds the total worldwide gross sales of model products and services. Who dowe believe will be making the rules? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that the people with the most political clout will be the ones in control so we had best be prepared to defend ourselves as new developments occur.

BTW, various unmanned systems are already mixing it up in the traffic pattern at militarycontrolled airfields in many places of the world, soa lot of further study in that area is not needed for it tohappen. It only requiresthat the unmanned unit beaccurate and reliable enough to be intregated into the traffic pattern, and standardized rules of operation that air controllers can utilize. ManyUAV's are more accurateand predictable than a manned aircraft. This is especially true where it concerns the pilotingof private, light aircraft. With manyUAV's the predictibility of an unmanned unit after a complete loss of comm is far greater than thatof the average Joe Blow in his Cessna,withaltitude and route of flight accuracyequal or better than that of apassenger jet on full auto pilot.

As for modelers always keeping their craft in sight, I'm sorry but that's not completely accurate. There's too much evidence that a lot of modelers are not flying line of sight. Instead they are flying with use of forward looking cameras well out of sight of the operators, or flying using headsets for point of view visuals, again out of sight of the operator. That places those models and operators in the UAV category but you'd be hard pressed to get the owner/operator of the plane to admit it's a UAV, Better yet, you'll get a tremendous arguement about how the modeler has a right to fly their model any way the want, configured any way they want. There are big problems that will come from that sector. Although I completely disagree with RCU's opening of a UAV forum on their site it did well illustrate how far modelers want to go with remote piloting methods, and has some notable examples of what they have already done. More fuel for the regulatory fire.

From my perspective we better get out collective acts together and present what we want to someone that has the ability to deliver the message. Do that as quickly as possible to provide the time needed to organize and prepare the delivery. To have a "wait and see" attitude will be the death of our hobby as we know it. I'm certain we will see far greater restrictions than what was presented via the ARC. There will likely be greater model size restriction than we have now. The possibiloity of medical certification prior to flying large models is not as far fecthed as one might think, especially if a new standard is incorporated where a UAV operator is required to be medically certified. That has already happened, and a UAV operator exerts less effort to fly their craft than we do ours. We already see a desire to prohibit turbines and speeds in excess of 100 mph. How much more could we be restricted? Quite a lot I think.

As for common sense, where has any government agency ever exibited any common sense?

Robotech

My Feedback: (9)

And other than attempting to rip the AMA for trying to protect their membership in a public forum what have you or your non-AMA schoolyard .049, free flight old timer folks done?You profess your didain for the AMAand all things organized but now you want others to protect you. You can't have your cake (donut) and eat it too. Rather than come here to berate the AMA why don't you rally the BFC to start a letter witing campaign or petition?

Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

Bob Dylan

Silent-AV8R

From Dave's MAColumn, June 2009:

The point being that this matter is not in a "sit and wait" mode. The AMAis actively working with the FAA to represent not only the interests of the AMAand its members, but model avaiation in general.

Dave goes on to say:

And finally:

KidEpoxy

emphasis mine
and until then, the members will
sit
wait
repeat


and we heard the answers from questioning are Dont Worry It Aint Us

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Gerry, I agree with a lot of what you have to say. It's bad enough when a manned flight, or "1st person" piloted flight crashes........most of those are forgivable. OTOH, imagine having someone you know or love killed by some UAV, especially one being flown by a modeler. I think it is this notion that is inspiration enough to cause stricter regulation.

Eplane65

My Feedback: (16)

We have a blossoming dictatorship in Washington that wants to control every aspect of our lives.

Silent-AV8R

keep in mind that with respect to UAV regulations the FAA started this process back in 2001. This is not something that just popped up. The FAA issued a notice to sUAS operators that AC 91-57 did not apply to them back in January 2007 and the ARC was formed in early 2008.

Silent-AV8R

I don't disagree with the idea that a model caused accident would be horrible, but I really think that the main reason for the sUAS/ARC was to start the process to regulate commercial sUAS activity. In doing so the FAA has been pretty clear that they do not wish to regulate models, but they must first define what they think is a model airplane operation in order to exclude it from regulation. Seems like the same thing, but it is not really.

Of course the danger to model aviation lays in what the FAA decides with respect to what they define us as being. But until we see the actual NPRM sometime around this time (or later) next year all we can do is speculate about what might happen.

kram-RCU

I have been seriously impressed (or depressed perhaps) during this and past episodes of regulatory threats to our RC flying, how LITTLE our elected representatives care about our hobby.

Every time I have contacted them, I get a response that is hardly even polite, often dismissive. I think we have been labeled as a small enough voting block that we can be ignored. That is a key difference between us and the aforementioned gun lobby. We would have more power if we were numismatists or bead collectors.

Strange how all this talk about terrorists using RC technology creates fear and interest, but the simple use of the automobile as a bombvector has a much more storied and successful history, at home and abroad.

Yet no one is talking about regulating automobiles.

My point, again: it is the financial and the political power of your membership, NOT thecorrectness of your cause, that brings rewards in a socialist democracy such as ours.

That, I think was the source of the sorta frustrated tone of this month'sAMAPresident's editorial about the ARC. We're being outvoted (or worse yet, ignored) even at that level.



mt

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

Bingo!

As a group or 150,000 we don't count for much, but as a group of 500,000 or whatever we might get somewhere.  The AOPA is not a lot larger than the AMA but they have noctice because of their visibility and polictical activity.  We could lean much from them.  

Silent-AV8R

And regardless of numbers we are still perceived, rightly or wrongly, as nothing more than big boys playing with toy airplanes. Despite the high level of complexity and sophistication of many of our models, we are still seen as nothing more than playing with toy airplanes.

A Slo-Stick with a camera on it is a serious sUAS designed for a commercial endeavor. Take the camera off and it is a toy airplane.

A WASP sUAS is a serious piece of military hardware (all 15 ounces and 28 inches of it) while a Stryker electric (at 100 mph) is still a toy.

Sadly, like so much in our society, perception is everything.


http://www.avinc.com/uas/

s3nfo

My Feedback: (14)

You still have to attract members and this only works if your business is something that people require, putting gas in their cars, buying groceries, building houses......
If your business is a leisure activity, increased regulation runs current and prospective members off, not increases and cements membership.

abel_pranger

AMEN!

Thanks for that, Jerry. I am very pleased that we are in agreement on that perspective.

Abel

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

So what will the solution be, a bunch of people individually running away from a problem or a large body facing it?  At least a few people in this forum will be ones sitting in the background sniping away at those that will be doing what they can to attain a workable solution.  A little unity for once would not be a bad thing.  Maintain that unity until such time as a general goal is reached then once again establish individuality.

Too many are busy debating what can and can't be done or previously established legalities governing this or that.  With enough power and money none of that matters because laws and regulations can, to a great extent, be changed to fit the perceived need.  Where do all those detailed backyard legal arguements end up then?  I'm well over 50 and can remember back to numerous other areas that were once handled in one manner but have been altered to better fit the demands of corporate America.  The little guy has always paid the price, and generally the little guy was relatively silent while drastic changes were taking place.  Is it going to happen again?  Based upon what I'm seeing in this AMA forum I'm guessing that the answer is yes.

There has been mention from one individual that he will only enjoin battles that he know's he can win.  He's forgetting that by himself it's unlikely that he could ever win any battle, let alone the large ones.  Are we all so selfish and self centered that the only areas of importance are the ones that address only and specifically our individual/personal area of activities?   There's too much of  "my ball, my way or no way" mentality that should have been corrected before leaving the 4th grade. 

DadsToysBG

My Feedback: (35)

It appear your not to tired. Good for you. Thats what I've been trying to say. Dennis