Gizmo-RCU

My Feedback: (27)

oneaew

WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY? A little hard to make sense of you post.

PatrickCurry

My Feedback: (20)

Not this. If the government every gets a taste of that nectar ($$$$)....... I think that's where it's headed anyway. The government doesn't give one crap about us, but they smell blood. Oh, let's just "regulate" this and require a "permit". ($$$$) Even after the people WE voted into office specifically excluded model airplanes from the LAWS they passed!

catboater

My Feedback: (51)

Hey Porcia, do you work for the AMA? You sure seem intent on defending them.
if you look at the percentages of those of us outraged by all this drone crap, in this thread and Another Drone Pilot Does it Again, the AMA surely must see it's membership wants nothing to do with these knuckleheads. oh wait! I forgot about the money part 😳!

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Yes yes, by all means, it's ALL about the money. LoL. I'd love to see a breakdown of how money has some role in this.

The way I see it, we all "work" for the AMA when we fly responsibly, and show the general public how responsible hobbyists operate. Your sweeping generalizations about who is and who isn't outraged by the "drone" issue doesn't appear based in fact, rather it's based on two threads here in RCU? Not exactly representative is it?

Put some specific numbers on the table, what exactly is the percentage of "us" outraged by this "drone crap". And take some time to define what the "crap" exactly is. What I see overall is a group of people annoyed and disappointed, and to some degree outraged over the reckless operation of multi-rotors. I'm one of them. I also see some people who are dead set against "drones" being involved with the hobby and AMA. If one looked at the threads here, and based their opinion solely on that basis, one might come away thinking say the majority of them fit a certain profile of modelers, one characteristic amount them being a resistance to change. I'm pretty sure that if that was the way it went throughout the years, we wouldn't have the depth and breadth of diversity in this hobby as we see it now. Maybe we just go back to the good old days of free flight or control line?

Many are complaining about something that has come and gone, and no amount of complaining on a web site is going to change that. I'm sorry to say I'm not jumping on the ban the drone wagon, pitchfork and torch in hand. Since you appear to have read my comments here, you've probably seen my thoughts on how the AMA could have done better, and could continue to do better on this issue. I will say this though, there was at least one other person in another thread that was dead set against the AMA's involvement but was doing more than just complaining on a web site. He was getting with his AVPs and trying to do something about it. I don't think it will lead to anything, but commend him nonetheless.


FYI I don't fly drones, don't really like them in general, not my cup of tea. Don't like heli's either but lead the charge to get them back into our flying club after they were kicked out. Why? Because they are flying models......

rgburrill

Let's get one thing straight. These people made a specific requirement that users FOLLOW THE RULES! PEOPLE ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES! I am sick and tired of hearing this crap about model airplanes are exempted - ONLY IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS!

rgburrill

I have posted several times the FAA web site for UAS. A quick show of hands for those who have actually visited that site? Any one you who keep bashing the FAA?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Yup, I have. But I think for some its easier to just demegog the FAA (govt bad), AMA (wasting our money), quad fliers (idiots) etc etc.

PatrickCurry

My Feedback: (20)

That was the way I understood it as the AMA reported it. Congress passed a law that exempted model airplanes and then the FAA ignored the law and set their own parameters. That's what they've been reporting for months. Personally, I could care less what you're sick and tired of.

topspin

Putting a drone on the cover of MA was tacit approval by the AMA. They did this for money because all you have to do is look at the advertisements, which by the way, comprise the majority of the pages. There will always be people who will break the rules and abuse technology with complete disregard for the safety of others. The AMA can't do anything about that but they can advocate strong penalties for anyone caught operating any model aircraft in an irresponsible way. Putting a toy up in the air for personal amusement and impeding emergency aircraft from taking off is no different than purposely blocking an ambulance or fire truck with your car. As far as I am concerned Jail time and big fines are in order.

Don't get me wrong, I have a Blade Nano QX but I always fly it responsibly and never fly it near commercial aircraft. In fact, I have never flown it above 20 feet in my front yard and I maintain visual control of it at all times.

kochj

If the gov. wanted to REALLY do something about this so called " I can't fly in that area because a drone is in the way" They could easily transmit something that would disrupt radio signals and
Drop ANYTHING remote control on the pavement!.... do not kid yourself....

stang151

I have lived ,and flown, in the area of the pass fire for many years. At the top of the pass there is a glider slope flying spot . Could it be that the " drones" that were seen were some guys at the top of the hill flying slope as the fire started below?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I'm not sure what they are "approving", tacitly or not, by showing a picture of a model on the cover. I don't see how that ties into any money issue. I would expect the magazine to have lots of ads in it, that is how it's largely paid for (in addition to a portion of our dues). In addition to the regular big retailers, there are lots of smaller mom and pup joints that probably get some good responses from placing their ads there.

I don't know that the AMA will have a say in the penalties, but I agree that they should be harsh, and hopefully deter future dangerous operation. You are completely right about some people breaking rules, hopefully some costly fines, criminal charges, and perhaps some time behind bars will make them think twice.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I think some of those folks responded here, or in another thread, that it was not them. I'm thinking the police or fire folks would have been able to differentiate. The slopers I think felt that the "drones" were from the news channels. Who knows...there are so many "sightings" of these things now, yet almost none are ever recovered.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Oh, I'm sure they have the technology already, but I doubt it's something they would want to unleash for something like fires (at a state or local level). I saw something on another site, Gizmodo I think, about the technology and how it is available, but would also wreak havoc with any radio transmissions in the area, including fire and police.

flycatch

My Feedback: (26)

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...318716471.html The **** is getting serious.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I was just about to post that. Another story I read said 75k, as does this, but also notes $25,000 towards the end of that story. Regardless, 25 or 75k is a ton of money.

fwiw they are also proposing $1,000 fines and jail time. It's a start!

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

It looks to me that these are Proposed laws and not yet passed ... I'd believe that unless there was a TFR in effect by the FAA they'd have a hard time prosecuting people for crimes that were not crimes at the time because the laws had not yet been passed. If there was a TFR (Temporary Flight Restriction) in effect then the only ones that can prosecute is the FAA. JMHO

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

That is what I've said from the beginning we (Responsible R/C Flyers) have to separate our selves from those ROUGES that are causing the problems. Just Like GUNS Quads are not the problem the Idiots that fly them where they are not allowed to fly are the problem. And by passing laws like these proposed, it places the responsibility on the individual committing the crime, and not all R/C Flyers. This is a good thing un like New Zeland that as of 1 AUG no one is allowed to fly any R/C plane any where in the country because of the drone activity interfering with full scale aircraft.

Let me ask a question. How many Quad haters are also Gun Control Advocates?

Start at 5:27 on the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWIh..._EIyNjA3MjAxNQ

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Eh...have no idea on that answer, and it will probably take the thread in a whole new direction I suspect.

When we fly responsibly and comport with our rules and regs, we separate ourselves from the outlaws in the skies (working on a trade-mark for that). I have no problem with some strict common sense laws on this issue (as if that is possible), and some pretty stiff fines if it's found that lives or property were put at risk due to reckless operation. I just hope that the laws don't get passed to quick, in knee jerk fashion, without the thought of how it could affect the rest of us.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Like on the old Laugh-in "I'll Drink to that".
Prosecute the individual not the whole class.

loopdeeloop

My Feedback: (4)

There are idiots in all segments of the population and those in the RC field are not limited to quads. I've seen it with helis and got up close and personal with two adults flying .40 size nitro airplanes from the parking lot of our local water park. Not bad enough??? Kids were riding bikes in that lot, houses across the street were being overflown and these numbskulls had no idea they were in the flight path to the airport less than a mile away. They knew nothing about the AMA and wanted nothing to do with them or our local clubs, and saw no problem doing what they were doing. The frosting on the cake is that the local FBO had no idea what the rules were for RC activity. A discussion about liability insurance meant zero to them. You just cannot fix "stupid".

Gizmo-RCU

My Feedback: (27)

Huray for San Berdo, where is AMA????????? Would be refreshing for them to lead the way.

rgburrill

SciFi buff? 'fraid not. Sure someone may already have a device that can block the video from going back to the pilot so he won't be able to see where he is. But hte operator can just fly straight up until he gets away from the jammng Someone may already have a device that can block the 2.4GHz RC control frequency. But most of these drones are programmed to return to home when the control frequency is lost. The only thing that will drop it on the ground is a firefighter accurate with a 12 gauge.

rgburrill

ThanK you.

f16man

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns and the same would come from quad freaks,