Sometimes AMA gets it right.
03-23-2010, 05:16 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Sometimes AMA gets it right.
At this writing the April issue of Model Aviation is not yet on the web site. When you get a chance to read yours, please read the President's article.
For the non-AMA visitors, keep checking the web site for it. http://www.modelaircraft.org/mag/ You non-AMAers may well be surprised at what is going on, and maybe understand why we, and YOU, actually need this AMA.
AMA Pres. Dvae Mathewson in APRIL issue of MA presents an excellent synopsis of AMA and FAA proceedings to date. In my not-so-humble opinion, this article is the most up-to-date item that I can remember being in any magazine outside the weekly political journals that I subscribe to.
In addition, it is written in a most easily understandable format (for me, definitely not a speed-reader that is something!) Yet, there is a load of information there.
You will be mistreating yourself if you pass this up, or treat it lightly. The article, to me, is probably the best that I have ever observed in any AMA magazine, both in content and style.
Dave, you did good, nope, not "good"- GREAT! with this one.
For the non-AMA visitors, keep checking the web site for it. http://www.modelaircraft.org/mag/ You non-AMAers may well be surprised at what is going on, and maybe understand why we, and YOU, actually need this AMA.
AMA Pres. Dvae Mathewson in APRIL issue of MA presents an excellent synopsis of AMA and FAA proceedings to date. In my not-so-humble opinion, this article is the most up-to-date item that I can remember being in any magazine outside the weekly political journals that I subscribe to.
In addition, it is written in a most easily understandable format (for me, definitely not a speed-reader that is something!) Yet, there is a load of information there.
You will be mistreating yourself if you pass this up, or treat it lightly. The article, to me, is probably the best that I have ever observed in any AMA magazine, both in content and style.
Dave, you did good, nope, not "good"- GREAT! with this one.
03-24-2010, 12:18 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Round Rock,
TX
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sometimes AMA gets it right.
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
Looks like AMA/MA is giving preference to Texas!! I'll have to see what I can do to put a stop to that!!! [&:]
Looks like AMA/MA is giving preference to Texas!! I'll have to see what I can do to put a stop to that!!! [&:]
I agree with Hoss - excellent article by Dave.
03-24-2010, 04:29 AM
#6
RE: Sometimes AMA gets it right.
I have been following this situation for a long time. Now I like the AMA and have been a member for a long time so what I am about to say is not AMA negative but a situation I am concerned about. I am glad they are looking out for my interest but with caution.
As you know the AMA membership has been decreasing. I am concerned that the FAA is going to decree that all model flying as we know it must be under a governing body such as the AMA and all model flying must be done at AMA designated fields. This will come about and it is in the AMA's best interest not to fight it, but adopt it. If you read between the lines, that approved body statement keeps showing up.
My club membership has also decreased and other members have asked why. My answer is the Park Flyer. I told them the best way to increase club membership is to get the city/county to outlaw any model flying in the county except at the current model field. Does this sound like a parallel to the FAA situation.
My $.02
As you know the AMA membership has been decreasing. I am concerned that the FAA is going to decree that all model flying as we know it must be under a governing body such as the AMA and all model flying must be done at AMA designated fields. This will come about and it is in the AMA's best interest not to fight it, but adopt it. If you read between the lines, that approved body statement keeps showing up.
My club membership has also decreased and other members have asked why. My answer is the Park Flyer. I told them the best way to increase club membership is to get the city/county to outlaw any model flying in the county except at the current model field. Does this sound like a parallel to the FAA situation.
My $.02
03-24-2010, 09:30 AM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Ozarks,
MO
Posts: 1,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sometimes AMA gets it right.
ORIGINAL: iflyj3
I have been following this situation for a long time. Now I like the AMA and have been a member for a long time so what I am about to say is not AMA negative but a situation I am concerned about. I am glad they are looking out for my interest but with caution.
As you know the AMA membership has been decreasing. I am concerned that the FAA is going to decree that all model flying as we know it must be under a governing body such as the AMA and all model flying must be done at AMA designated fields. This will come about and it is in the AMA's best interest not to fight it, but adopt it. If you read between the lines, that approved body statement keeps showing up.
My club membership has also decreased and other members have asked why. My answer is the Park Flyer. I told them the best way to increase club membership is to get the city/county to outlaw any model flying in the county except at the current model field. Does this sound like a parallel to the FAA situation.
My $.02
I have been following this situation for a long time. Now I like the AMA and have been a member for a long time so what I am about to say is not AMA negative but a situation I am concerned about. I am glad they are looking out for my interest but with caution.
As you know the AMA membership has been decreasing. I am concerned that the FAA is going to decree that all model flying as we know it must be under a governing body such as the AMA and all model flying must be done at AMA designated fields. This will come about and it is in the AMA's best interest not to fight it, but adopt it. If you read between the lines, that approved body statement keeps showing up.
My club membership has also decreased and other members have asked why. My answer is the Park Flyer. I told them the best way to increase club membership is to get the city/county to outlaw any model flying in the county except at the current model field. Does this sound like a parallel to the FAA situation.
My $.02
You sound just like some of the DC bunch that want to have complete control over everybody an anything they do.
03-24-2010, 11:25 AM
#9
Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: O Fallon,
MO
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sometimes AMA gets it right.
ORIGINAL: iflyj3
I have been following this situation for a long time. Now I like the AMA and have been a member for a long time so what I am about to say is not AMA negative but a situation I am concerned about. I am glad they are looking out for my interest but with caution.
As you know the AMA membership has been decreasing. I am concerned that the FAA is going to decree that all model flying as we know it must be under a governing body such as the AMA and all model flying must be done at AMA designated fields. This will come about and it is in the AMA's best interest not to fight it, but adopt it. If you read between the lines, that approved body statement keeps showing up.
My club membership has also decreased and other members have asked why. My answer is the Park Flyer. I told them the best way to increase club membership is to get the city/county to outlaw any model flying in the county except at the current model field. Does this sound like a parallel to the FAA situation.
My $.02
I have been following this situation for a long time. Now I like the AMA and have been a member for a long time so what I am about to say is not AMA negative but a situation I am concerned about. I am glad they are looking out for my interest but with caution.
As you know the AMA membership has been decreasing. I am concerned that the FAA is going to decree that all model flying as we know it must be under a governing body such as the AMA and all model flying must be done at AMA designated fields. This will come about and it is in the AMA's best interest not to fight it, but adopt it. If you read between the lines, that approved body statement keeps showing up.
My club membership has also decreased and other members have asked why. My answer is the Park Flyer. I told them the best way to increase club membership is to get the city/county to outlaw any model flying in the county except at the current model field. Does this sound like a parallel to the FAA situation.
My $.02
03-24-2010, 04:24 PM
#11
RE: Sometimes AMA gets it right.
ORIGINAL: KenP
The AMA and clubs will not see increases through the force them to join model, you will just see more people leave the hobby.
ORIGINAL: iflyj3
I have been following this situation for a long time. Now I like the AMA and have been a member for a long time so what I am about to say is not AMA negative but a situation I am concerned about. I am glad they are looking out for my interest but with caution.
As you know the AMA membership has been decreasing. I am concerned that the FAA is going to decree that all model flying as we know it must be under a governing body such as the AMA and all model flying must be done at AMA designated fields. This will come about and it is in the AMA's best interest not to fight it, but adopt it. If you read between the lines, that approved body statement keeps showing up.
My club membership has also decreased and other members have asked why. My answer is the Park Flyer. I told them the best way to increase club membership is to get the city/county to outlaw any model flying in the county except at the current model field. Does this sound like a parallel to the FAA situation.
My $.02
I have been following this situation for a long time. Now I like the AMA and have been a member for a long time so what I am about to say is not AMA negative but a situation I am concerned about. I am glad they are looking out for my interest but with caution.
As you know the AMA membership has been decreasing. I am concerned that the FAA is going to decree that all model flying as we know it must be under a governing body such as the AMA and all model flying must be done at AMA designated fields. This will come about and it is in the AMA's best interest not to fight it, but adopt it. If you read between the lines, that approved body statement keeps showing up.
My club membership has also decreased and other members have asked why. My answer is the Park Flyer. I told them the best way to increase club membership is to get the city/county to outlaw any model flying in the county except at the current model field. Does this sound like a parallel to the FAA situation.
My $.02
03-24-2010, 07:01 PM
#12
Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: old mystic,
CT
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sometimes AMA gets it right.
This article is an important read,especially to the Non-AMA and anti AMA crowd. Hossfly is absolutely correct. So is Dave Mathewson.
03-24-2010, 07:25 PM
#13
RE: Sometimes AMA gets it right.
ORIGINAL: HH
This article is an important read,especially to the Non-AMA and anti AMA crowd. Hossfly is absolutely correct. So is Dave Mathewson.
This article is an important read,especially to the Non-AMA and anti AMA crowd. Hossfly is absolutely correct. So is Dave Mathewson.
03-24-2010, 07:38 PM
#14
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Apple River IL
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sometimes AMA gets it right.
Dan, Horrace,
I have to agree with you both, although I read excerpts from the article elsewhere I will certainly read the AMA one asap. In addition, this thread is the only one that appears to have started and remained constructive, I think SilentAVcan attest to that(but it is young). It's difficult to participate in an online discussion thread when senseless rhetoric is injected everywhere, and then misinformeation fills the pages. I think if the discussion remains serious regarding preserving modeling as it has been then the direction needs to be pointed toward something along the lines of an AMOC if it should come to that. It would be nice if it didn't, but in todays economic climate, I believe that the ones with the money are the ones with the clout; and that is those industries that are much larger than the AMA in the grand scheme of things. That's my 32 cents (inflation you know!)
Yes, long live the MP8K, but I love my Pro Lines too.
Mark
I have to agree with you both, although I read excerpts from the article elsewhere I will certainly read the AMA one asap. In addition, this thread is the only one that appears to have started and remained constructive, I think SilentAVcan attest to that(but it is young). It's difficult to participate in an online discussion thread when senseless rhetoric is injected everywhere, and then misinformeation fills the pages. I think if the discussion remains serious regarding preserving modeling as it has been then the direction needs to be pointed toward something along the lines of an AMOC if it should come to that. It would be nice if it didn't, but in todays economic climate, I believe that the ones with the money are the ones with the clout; and that is those industries that are much larger than the AMA in the grand scheme of things. That's my 32 cents (inflation you know!)
Yes, long live the MP8K, but I love my Pro Lines too.
Mark
03-24-2010, 08:40 PM
#15
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sometimes AMA gets it right.
ORIGINAL: iflyj3
Yes, I have read the treatise and it is well written. I have also read the ones in the past. About three years from now, review my #6 post in the forum and see if I was right.
ORIGINAL: HH
This article is an important read,especially to the Non-AMA and anti AMA crowd. Hossfly is absolutely correct. So is Dave Mathewson.
This article is an important read,especially to the Non-AMA and anti AMA crowd. Hossfly is absolutely correct. So is Dave Mathewson.
You are right, and I don't need to reread your Post #6 to know that. DM's message was well thought out and polished. OTOH the (as yet to be approved) minutes of the EC meeting that record more candidly 'a synopsis of AMA and FAA proceedings' that were central to Dave's article don't provoke the same warm and fuzzy feelings. Presentation of the issues and status of proceedings regarding the future of our interests as modelers from all available sources, easy enough as they are somewhat disturbingly too rare, should be considered before lining up to play 'follow the leader.'
Cletus
03-25-2010, 02:28 AM
#16
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Scappoose, OR
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sometimes AMA gets it right.
Fellow Hobbies: I am concerned about the issue of regulating our flying activities. In re-reading the August 2008 issue of MA, page55, the discussion on getting a AMA Waiver for piloting a jet model is very interesting. As a retired aircraft mechanic, I needed to complete an approved FAA training program, and then pass both of the tests in order to receive my license to work on aircraft. Considering the FAA is now viewing our model piloting, it would seem to me that in order to satisfy the FAA and the Rule making committee, all models will be flown by pilots with an approved license. This would place the Parkflyers into the same categorie as the rest of us who are trained pilots. Anyone who does not have a license, would be fined just like getting a citation for driving over the posted speed limits in your vehicle. Such a program would make sense to the FAA, and put us out of the Commercial sUAS rulings. I suspect that there are some of you who have had this idea come to mind when the ParkFlyer Program started up. From my investigation of other clubs in the US, I find a wealth of flight training programs offered by clubs. It would not be difficult to develop a training program to be carried out by AMA members at fields across the country. The only drawback to this suggestion is that a lot of companies would be very unhappy as the consumers who plug and play with the quickly purchase parkflyer would not want to get a pilot's license, and not purchase the model. I personally am not crying about this as I feel this is an area of hurt for us who follow the rules in operating our planes.
Ok, what say you?
aerorich73
Ok, what say you?
aerorich73
03-25-2010, 08:52 AM
#17
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sometimes AMA gets it right.
ORIGINAL: AERORICH73
Fellow Hobbies: I am concerned about the issue of regulating our flying activities. In re-reading the August 2008 issue of MA, page55, the discussion on getting a AMA Waiver for piloting a jet model is very interesting. As a retired aircraft mechanic, I needed to complete an approved FAA training program, and then pass both of the tests in order to receive my license to work on aircraft. Considering the FAA is now viewing our model piloting, it would seem to me that in order to satisfy the FAA and the Rule making committee, all models will be flown by pilots with an approved license. This would place the Parkflyers into the same categorie as the rest of us who are trained pilots. Anyone who does not have a license, would be fined just like getting a citation for driving over the posted speed limits in your vehicle. Such a program would make sense to the FAA, and put us out of the Commercial sUAS rulings. I suspect that there are some of you who have had this idea come to mind when the ParkFlyer Program started up. From my investigation of other clubs in the US, I find a wealth of flight training programs offered by clubs. It would not be difficult to develop a training program to be carried out by AMA members at fields across the country. The only drawback to this suggestion is that a lot of companies would be very unhappy as the consumers who plug and play with the quickly purchase parkflyer would not want to get a pilot's license, and not purchase the model. I personally am not crying about this as I feel this is an area of hurt for us who follow the rules in operating our planes.
Ok, what say you?
aerorich73
Fellow Hobbies: I am concerned about the issue of regulating our flying activities. In re-reading the August 2008 issue of MA, page55, the discussion on getting a AMA Waiver for piloting a jet model is very interesting. As a retired aircraft mechanic, I needed to complete an approved FAA training program, and then pass both of the tests in order to receive my license to work on aircraft. Considering the FAA is now viewing our model piloting, it would seem to me that in order to satisfy the FAA and the Rule making committee, all models will be flown by pilots with an approved license. This would place the Parkflyers into the same categorie as the rest of us who are trained pilots. Anyone who does not have a license, would be fined just like getting a citation for driving over the posted speed limits in your vehicle. Such a program would make sense to the FAA, and put us out of the Commercial sUAS rulings. I suspect that there are some of you who have had this idea come to mind when the ParkFlyer Program started up. From my investigation of other clubs in the US, I find a wealth of flight training programs offered by clubs. It would not be difficult to develop a training program to be carried out by AMA members at fields across the country. The only drawback to this suggestion is that a lot of companies would be very unhappy as the consumers who plug and play with the quickly purchase parkflyer would not want to get a pilot's license, and not purchase the model. I personally am not crying about this as I feel this is an area of hurt for us who follow the rules in operating our planes.
Ok, what say you?
aerorich73
03-25-2010, 09:19 AM
#18
RE: Sometimes AMA gets it right.
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf
A crock of crap
ORIGINAL: AERORICH73
Fellow Hobbies: I am concerned about the issue of regulating our flying activities. In re-reading the August 2008 issue of MA, page55, the discussion on getting a AMA Waiver for piloting a jet model is very interesting. As a retired aircraft mechanic, I needed to complete an approved FAA training program, and then pass both of the tests in order to receive my license to work on aircraft. Considering the FAA is now viewing our model piloting, it would seem to me that in order to satisfy the FAA and the Rule making committee, all models will be flown by pilots with an approved license. This would place the Parkflyers into the same categorie as the rest of us who are trained pilots. Anyone who does not have a license, would be fined just like getting a citation for driving over the posted speed limits in your vehicle. Such a program would make sense to the FAA, and put us out of the Commercial sUAS rulings. I suspect that there are some of you who have had this idea come to mind when the ParkFlyer Program started up. From my investigation of other clubs in the US, I find a wealth of flight training programs offered by clubs. It would not be difficult to develop a training program to be carried out by AMA members at fields across the country. The only drawback to this suggestion is that a lot of companies would be very unhappy as the consumers who plug and play with the quickly purchase parkflyer would not want to get a pilot's license, and not purchase the model. I personally am not crying about this as I feel this is an area of hurt for us who follow the rules in operating our planes.
Ok, what say you?
aerorich73
Fellow Hobbies: I am concerned about the issue of regulating our flying activities. In re-reading the August 2008 issue of MA, page55, the discussion on getting a AMA Waiver for piloting a jet model is very interesting. As a retired aircraft mechanic, I needed to complete an approved FAA training program, and then pass both of the tests in order to receive my license to work on aircraft. Considering the FAA is now viewing our model piloting, it would seem to me that in order to satisfy the FAA and the Rule making committee, all models will be flown by pilots with an approved license. This would place the Parkflyers into the same categorie as the rest of us who are trained pilots. Anyone who does not have a license, would be fined just like getting a citation for driving over the posted speed limits in your vehicle. Such a program would make sense to the FAA, and put us out of the Commercial sUAS rulings. I suspect that there are some of you who have had this idea come to mind when the ParkFlyer Program started up. From my investigation of other clubs in the US, I find a wealth of flight training programs offered by clubs. It would not be difficult to develop a training program to be carried out by AMA members at fields across the country. The only drawback to this suggestion is that a lot of companies would be very unhappy as the consumers who plug and play with the quickly purchase parkflyer would not want to get a pilot's license, and not purchase the model. I personally am not crying about this as I feel this is an area of hurt for us who follow the rules in operating our planes.
Ok, what say you?
aerorich73
03-25-2010, 01:19 PM
#19
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Scappoose, OR
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sometimes AMA gets it right.
Well fellows: We will see just what kind of crap comes from the FAA when all the talking is done, and the round pin does not fit the square hole. We all may think the airspace is public property, but after 9/11 things have changed. The military is using small planes for recon use, and understand what they can do. With the military flying UAV's, the airspace has a different meaning. You can scoff at my writing, but keep an open mind about our personal right to use the airspace for flying our models.
aerorich73
aerorich73
03-25-2010, 03:54 PM
#21
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sometimes AMA gets it right.
ORIGINAL: Jim Thomerson
The AMA membership card used to have the word ''license'' on it.
The AMA membership card used to have the word ''license'' on it.
03-25-2010, 06:25 PM
#22
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Apple River IL
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sometimes AMA gets it right.
ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
It's coming back. In a little publicized behind the scenes operation, AMA and FAA are coordinating recruitment of a large corps of career hall monitors that will be deployed to police parks and pastures for outlaw model flyers and so enforce the new regulations.
ORIGINAL: Jim Thomerson
The AMA membership card used to have the word ''license'' on it.
The AMA membership card used to have the word ''license'' on it.
Aero, military ops are a somewhat different breed, furthermore they just can't bop around the NAS as they see fit. There's more to it than there's room for here, but really, military UAS ops are not the concern that commercially developed "civil use" UASs will be (eventually), because they are what will cause consternation for the hobby/recreation.
hQQk
03-25-2010, 11:47 PM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sometimes AMA gets it right.
again I am thinking of how horrible it would be
to have the same certification and enforcement brought to RC flying
that the FAA brings down on p103 Utralight flying.
You guys are focused on how we RC could be treated like one set of pilots (GA/LS),
and are ignoring the other set of pilots of ittybitty <250lb recreational aircraft (p103 Ultralights)
rather than begging Dont treat us like GA,
why dont we suggest Just treat us like you treat p103
sure,
I know the answer is that WE ARE the same thing as commercial/mil/ga uavs,
which makes it all the harder try to justify why the laws that will apply to all uavs shouldnt apply to our uavs
due to following the law being bothersome for us
to have the same certification and enforcement brought to RC flying
that the FAA brings down on p103 Utralight flying.
You guys are focused on how we RC could be treated like one set of pilots (GA/LS),
and are ignoring the other set of pilots of ittybitty <250lb recreational aircraft (p103 Ultralights)
rather than begging Dont treat us like GA,
why dont we suggest Just treat us like you treat p103
sure,
I know the answer is that WE ARE the same thing as commercial/mil/ga uavs,
which makes it all the harder try to justify why the laws that will apply to all uavs shouldnt apply to our uavs
due to following the law being bothersome for us
03-26-2010, 06:47 AM
#24
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Naperville, IL
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sometimes AMA gets it right.
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
again I am thinking of how horrible it would be
to have the same certification and enforcement brought to RC flying
that the FAA brings down on p103 Utralight flying.
You guys are focused on how we RC could be treated like one set of pilots (GA/LS),
and are ignoring the other set of pilots of ittybitty <250lb recreational aircraft (p103 Ultralights)
rather than begging Dont treat us like GA,
why dont we suggest Just treat us like you treat p103
sure,
I know the answer is that WE ARE the same thing as commercial/mil/ga uavs,
which makes it all the harder try to justify why the laws that will apply to all uavs shouldnt apply to our uavs
due to following the law being bothersome for us
again I am thinking of how horrible it would be
to have the same certification and enforcement brought to RC flying
that the FAA brings down on p103 Utralight flying.
You guys are focused on how we RC could be treated like one set of pilots (GA/LS),
and are ignoring the other set of pilots of ittybitty <250lb recreational aircraft (p103 Ultralights)
rather than begging Dont treat us like GA,
why dont we suggest Just treat us like you treat p103
sure,
I know the answer is that WE ARE the same thing as commercial/mil/ga uavs,
which makes it all the harder try to justify why the laws that will apply to all uavs shouldnt apply to our uavs
due to following the law being bothersome for us
Kid,
I'veread quite a bit on this, where in all the available material do you read that model activities are going to be regulated like GA? As for Part 103, there are 13 sections to it of which 9 are operating rules; even parachutistare more regulated under Part 105. True, ultra-lights are small, but they're not itty-bitty; in fact I would have more concern over an ultra-light or powered parachute maneuvering into our flying field perimeters than I would over a GA or LSA aircraft. There have been a number of threads regarding controlled/uncontrolled airspace, which seems to be fairly misunderstood, yet the concern IMO, is for the modeler that chooses to operate outside of a community organization (an example would be the AMA, but it doesn't need to be the only one). The regulatory aspects really don't come into play unless one chooses to operate for profit (not just in dollars) or other than as a hobbyist or a recreation. IMO the focus needs to be on preserving current practices by demonstrating a continued diligence on operating safely. Whether AMA continues in that direction and one chooses to participate that way, or others decide to group together in another fashion remains to be seen. I for one do not want to see turbines eliminated or even restricted when used by modelers (hobby/recreation) who remain outside of any community organization. In addition, I also am not a fan ofthe speed restrictions that could be imposed in the recommended practices. Not trying to slam your post in anyway Kid because you haveraised valid points elsewhere too, I just disagree with tying modeling(hobby/recreation) to any regulatoryrequirement. The AMA article was well written, but I think it could have made better distinctions between civil sUASs and commercially made sUASs for public use,' but that's another issue.
mp
I'veread quite a bit on this, where in all the available material do you read that model activities are going to be regulated like GA? As for Part 103, there are 13 sections to it of which 9 are operating rules; even parachutistare more regulated under Part 105. True, ultra-lights are small, but they're not itty-bitty; in fact I would have more concern over an ultra-light or powered parachute maneuvering into our flying field perimeters than I would over a GA or LSA aircraft. There have been a number of threads regarding controlled/uncontrolled airspace, which seems to be fairly misunderstood, yet the concern IMO, is for the modeler that chooses to operate outside of a community organization (an example would be the AMA, but it doesn't need to be the only one). The regulatory aspects really don't come into play unless one chooses to operate for profit (not just in dollars) or other than as a hobbyist or a recreation. IMO the focus needs to be on preserving current practices by demonstrating a continued diligence on operating safely. Whether AMA continues in that direction and one chooses to participate that way, or others decide to group together in another fashion remains to be seen. I for one do not want to see turbines eliminated or even restricted when used by modelers (hobby/recreation) who remain outside of any community organization. In addition, I also am not a fan ofthe speed restrictions that could be imposed in the recommended practices. Not trying to slam your post in anyway Kid because you haveraised valid points elsewhere too, I just disagree with tying modeling(hobby/recreation) to any regulatoryrequirement. The AMA article was well written, but I think it could have made better distinctions between civil sUASs and commercially made sUASs for public use,' but that's another issue.
mp
