Should AMA have a "Drone Operators" Classification?
01-04-2016, 01:55 PM
#51
I don't think anybody uses goggles anymore, just an LCD screen on the transmitter. You won't find goggles in any of the quad box's, one would have to purchase it separate. Most crash and give up before they even think of it. And others hate wearing them.
01-04-2016, 02:36 PM
#53
Funny you mention Fat shark , that was the very brand I was thinking of because I've seen them before , but didn't mention them by name cause I didn't think any of the non FPV flyers would know of them . Either way , if the PIC is looking at a little LCD screen on the TX , that's still not direct eye contact with the aircraft . In a panic situation , how long will it take that pilot to look from the screen to the sky and gain meaningful visual contact with the craft enough to correct whatever flight issue has arisen ? in those split seconds between where he either gains visual contact or cedes the TX to the spotter whose supposed to have visual contact how much distance will that craft have traveled ? I do see the FAA's problem , at what point does LOS become BLOS , and they seem to think it's the very second the pilot doesn't have two eyes in visual contact with the aircraft . I guess with all due logic I gotta agree with the FAA on that one . Hence our #550 IS BLOS to them , hence we toss out #336 cause "US is THEM" , as it were , since a subset of our #336 protected operations includes a mode of flight outside of the limits of being a "Traditionally flown" (LOS) model aircraft .
01-04-2016, 03:01 PM
#54
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Funny you mention Fat shark , that was the very brand I was thinking of because I've seen them before , but didn't mention them by name cause I didn't think any of the non FPV flyers would know of them . Either way , if the PIC is looking at a little LCD screen on the TX , that's still not direct eye contact with the aircraft . In a panic situation , how long will it take that pilot to look from the screen to the sky and gain meaningful visual contact with the craft enough to correct whatever flight issue has arisen ? in those split seconds between where he either gains visual contact or cedes the TX to the spotter whose supposed to have visual contact how much distance will that craft have traveled ? I do see the FAA's problem , at what point does LOS become BLOS , and they seem to think it's the very second the pilot doesn't have two eyes in visual contact with the aircraft . I guess with all due logic I gotta agree with the FAA on that one . Hence our #550 IS BLOS to them , hence we toss out #336 cause "US is THEM" , as it were , since a subset of our #336 protected operations includes a mode of flight outside of the limits of being a "Traditionally flown" (LOS) model aircraft .
01-04-2016, 03:04 PM
#55
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
These were the ones I tried on, but in white. Amazingly light.
Not cheap either, as is some of the gear for these things. I look at 250 and think of the whole plane I could get for that price, let alone one piece of a flying system. But that's just me, and nothing is really that cheap in this hobby (complete systems wise) at the end of the day.
Not cheap either, as is some of the gear for these things. I look at 250 and think of the whole plane I could get for that price, let alone one piece of a flying system. But that's just me, and nothing is really that cheap in this hobby (complete systems wise) at the end of the day.
01-04-2016, 03:20 PM
#56
My Feedback: (42)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Liberty, SC
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
porcia, you did say in one of your posts that they would have to answer to you, and it wouldn't be pretty, I don't come on here to attack any one, but you need to look at what you say, and I am not the only one on here with a problem with you!!
01-04-2016, 03:28 PM
#58
No he wasn't threatening anybody , he was joking cause I said in my post ;"Call me old fashioned , or just plain old"
To which he jokingly said ;
"Anyone who dares try that approach is going to answer to me and it won't be pretty"
Now honestly , see how easy it can be to misunderstand someone when all you can see is words and not the emotions behind the words ? You have my assurance that what he was saying was lighthearted banter and not a call for the head of the next guy who crosses him .
Now , call me old at your own peril !!! 
Kidding , Just kidding , see how cold words can look till ya know the feelings behind them ?
Last edited by init4fun; 01-04-2016 at 03:32 PM.
01-04-2016, 03:31 PM
#59
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 4,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is one of the latest systems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z625R9eljIc
Last edited by Rob2160; 01-04-2016 at 03:43 PM.
01-04-2016, 03:32 PM
#60
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Owatonna,
MN
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has you noticed that the "No Drone Zone" Tool Kit as it's called depicts a multi-rotor only. How many folks do you think will see those signs and think, by golly it's ok to fly my heli or foamy here. Seems to me if all models are thrown into the Drone category that the sign should depict all types. It is really too bad there are so many flaws in this mess we used to call model aviation. I again remind folks that it wasn't just the irresponsible multi-rotor, FPV, BLOS folks who got us where we are. There is plenty of blame to go around and the laser pointing idiots are in the mix as well. Irresponsibility leads to regulation. As we found out with what was to be a grand health care scheme, things don't always go as planned. The FAA and AMA will soon find out what new issues they caused and failed to correct and there will be a round of fixes, followed by more issues and more rounds of fixes, and then soon the legal profession will be advertising on tv.
01-04-2016, 03:38 PM
#61
Has you noticed that the "No Drone Zone" Tool Kit as it's called depicts a multi-rotor only. How many folks do you think will see those signs and think, by golly it's ok to fly my heli or foamy here. Seems to me if all models are thrown into the Drone category that the sign should depict all types. It is really too bad there are so many flaws in this mess we used to call model aviation. I again remind folks that it wasn't just the irresponsible multi-rotor, FPV, BLOS folks who got us where we are. There is plenty of blame to go around and the laser pointing idiots are in the mix as well. Irresponsibility leads to regulation. As we found out with what was to be a grand health care scheme, things don't always go as planned. The FAA and AMA will soon find out what new issues they caused and failed to correct and there will be a round of fixes, followed by more issues and more rounds of fixes, and then soon the legal profession will be advertising on tv.
With all due respect , traditional LOS flying went along pretty good policing itself for the first 70 or so years . It wasn't till the flying cameras came along , that the behavior became bad enough to warrant regulatory intervention . Had we not been tied in with any BLOS activities I believe we still would have had our #336 exemption .
01-04-2016, 03:39 PM
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 4,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No he wasn't threatening anybody , he was joking cause I said in my post ;"Call me old fashioned , or just plain old"
To which he jokingly said ;
"Anyone who dares try that approach is going to answer to me and it won't be pretty"
Now honestly , see how easy it can be to misunderstand someone when all you can see is words and not the emotions behind the words ? You have my assurance that what he was saying was lighthearted banter and not a call for the head of the next guy who crosses him .
Now , call me old at your own peril !!! Kidding , Just kidding , see how cold words can look till ya know the feelings behind them ?
01-04-2016, 03:59 PM
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 4,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazing what some people can do with a set of googles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRmlX6rrs2w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MBW8zoZUR4
Last edited by Rob2160; 01-04-2016 at 04:09 PM.
01-04-2016, 04:13 PM
#65
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Paradox,
NY
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best post of the year!!!!!!! Hit the nail on the head!!
My first thought is that anyone who talks about quads and drone flight characteristics without ever flying them, should not talk about how easy it is to fly a quad or a drone. It is not as simple as pushing a button and watching it fly, that is an absolute fallacy, and is more often times the narrative put forth by those who just don't like them. They all require some level of proficiency. The cheaper toy grade ones are not the easiest to fly, just as an Air Hogs Heli isn't so easy to fly right out of the box (at least for me..
) . I'm willing to bet at good amount of those toy grade ones are already broken or lost to flyaway scenarios. Jeez even the guys who are good with these have trouble flying them sometimes.
Yes, some of the higher end ones have multiple gyros and stabilization systems. Guess what, most need to be programmed. Again, not something the average person knows how to do pulling them "right out of a box". So please, those who have never done it, really have no place talking about how easy they are to fly. I've never flown a turbine and wouldn't presume to talk about how they fly even though I've seen many different types fly, from the Boomerang Trainers to F-104 Startfighters. Gee they look easy enough to fly, same control surfaces my EDF jets have!
As for more classifications, for what? So we can have more labels to stick on people? Many of the MR/Drone folks also fly fixed wing. Should we have yet another classification for those? How about we call all AMA members AMA members? Let's leave the "class" stuff out of the AMA, the same with comments like "the backbone" of the AMA. I know this sounds harsh, but you don't know what the backbone of the AMA is, there is nothing I've ever seen to indicate fuel consuming pilots are the backbone of the AMA. Sorry, that sounds like an elitist comment, please keep in mind I'm not calling you that....I'm not looking for an argument in that regards, just my opinion. Plenty of folks are into free flight, electric, and multiple types of gliders (non motorized, slope). I prefer to think we are in a category of one...that being AMA members. It starts and stops there for me, regardless of what you fly. From a Guillows free flight model to a 20k turbine, it makes not difference to me.
Finally, if you had a chance to read the FAA registration document, you would have seen it doesn't matter what you fly, we are all in one category now. They didn't take the time to differentiate, so as of now, it doesn't matter what happens internally with the AMA, the FAA's definition is the only one that counts.
) . I'm willing to bet at good amount of those toy grade ones are already broken or lost to flyaway scenarios. Jeez even the guys who are good with these have trouble flying them sometimes.Yes, some of the higher end ones have multiple gyros and stabilization systems. Guess what, most need to be programmed. Again, not something the average person knows how to do pulling them "right out of a box". So please, those who have never done it, really have no place talking about how easy they are to fly. I've never flown a turbine and wouldn't presume to talk about how they fly even though I've seen many different types fly, from the Boomerang Trainers to F-104 Startfighters. Gee they look easy enough to fly, same control surfaces my EDF jets have!
As for more classifications, for what? So we can have more labels to stick on people? Many of the MR/Drone folks also fly fixed wing. Should we have yet another classification for those? How about we call all AMA members AMA members? Let's leave the "class" stuff out of the AMA, the same with comments like "the backbone" of the AMA. I know this sounds harsh, but you don't know what the backbone of the AMA is, there is nothing I've ever seen to indicate fuel consuming pilots are the backbone of the AMA. Sorry, that sounds like an elitist comment, please keep in mind I'm not calling you that....I'm not looking for an argument in that regards, just my opinion. Plenty of folks are into free flight, electric, and multiple types of gliders (non motorized, slope). I prefer to think we are in a category of one...that being AMA members. It starts and stops there for me, regardless of what you fly. From a Guillows free flight model to a 20k turbine, it makes not difference to me.
Finally, if you had a chance to read the FAA registration document, you would have seen it doesn't matter what you fly, we are all in one category now. They didn't take the time to differentiate, so as of now, it doesn't matter what happens internally with the AMA, the FAA's definition is the only one that counts.
01-04-2016, 04:32 PM
#67
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
01-04-2016, 04:35 PM
#68
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
The goggle market is alive and well with plenty of new models becoming available.
Amazing what some people can do with a set of googles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRmlX6rrs2w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MBW8zoZUR4
Amazing what some people can do with a set of googles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRmlX6rrs2w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MBW8zoZUR4
01-04-2016, 04:38 PM
#69
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Do you mean each post....or the whole threads. In either case each thread has a count next to it which shows how many "hits" each thread has. Suffice it to say...the AMA threads generally have the most hits. Bet this past month or two has been among the highest ever.
01-04-2016, 04:42 PM
#71
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Shorewood, WI
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can agree to disagree on the whole #336 exemption thing being blown by our (the AMA) allowance of BLOS able craft . No problem . Just know that of 300 people polled , 77% of them saw my opinion as being correct , where only 23% saw your's as the correct position . This is not a diss or a slap at you in the least , just a statement of fact that a great majority of a poll's respondents agree that the AMA did the wrong thing to allow craft that could possibly fly BLOS into our hangar . That's all , no malice or spite .....
Which poll and what is the sample size? Polls are a bit like statistics, depending on how they are worded, the conclusions can be pretty nebulous.
Since you, I, and others have agreed that flight systems that can control model aircraft BLOS have been out there for some years now and any type of aircraft can be so equipped, what specifically could the AMA leadership done to not, as you put it, "allow craft that could possibly fly BLOS into our hanger?" I'd like to hear your proposal on that.
Lars
01-04-2016, 04:48 PM
#72
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Shorewood, WI
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LARS
01-04-2016, 04:56 PM
#73
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 4,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-04-2016, 05:07 PM
#75
No problem... I don't take any malice from anything someone says or writes unless it is overt.
Which poll and what is the sample size? Polls are a bit like statistics, depending on how they are worded, the conclusions can be pretty nebulous.
Since you, I, and others have agreed that flight systems that can control model aircraft BLOS have been out there for some years now and any type of aircraft can be so equipped, what specifically could the AMA leadership done to not, as you put it, "allow craft that could possibly fly BLOS into our hanger?" I'd like to hear your proposal on that.
Lars
Which poll and what is the sample size? Polls are a bit like statistics, depending on how they are worded, the conclusions can be pretty nebulous.
Since you, I, and others have agreed that flight systems that can control model aircraft BLOS have been out there for some years now and any type of aircraft can be so equipped, what specifically could the AMA leadership done to not, as you put it, "allow craft that could possibly fly BLOS into our hanger?" I'd like to hear your proposal on that.
Lars
Hi Lars , I am happy you didn't take offense , my posting style can seem over the top aggressive at times , but I promise you when I'm arguing a point I truly mean no ill will for those who don't believe as I do .
Now , my belief ? My belief is that the AMA should have continued to support LOS flight only , and left BLOS operations out of our organization till the FAA had their say . I agree that FPV equipment has been around a few years , but also the fact is that it's been known since at least 2012 that the FAA was planning changes that will regulate those BLOS operations . Please remember , even "AMA condoned #550 FPV operations" ARE considered BLOS by the FAA since the primary pilot's two eyes don't have direct visual contact with the aircraft . It is that contradiction , that model aircraft are flown LOS only , and yet we have a category of model aircraft that are being flown BLOS , that caused the FAA to lump us all together . So my proposal ? eliminate #550 , thereby restoring the definitive line between our LOS model aircraft and BLOS drones , and use that fact that we allow LOS only in the court challenge to our LOS craft being subject to the regulation intended for BLOS . Please also know , that I am not in the least against BLOS operations . I have in the past stated that drones have much good work to do in the fields of search & rescue , Land surveying , and I truly can't wait for my first Amazon drone delivery . At the same time , I don't think this new mode of flight is close enough to traditional LOS model aircraft operations to be lumped in with us , whether the BLOS is being done for commercial OR recreational purposes .
Oh yea , I almost forgot , in the AMA subforum there is a poll thread called "Yes or No , is it OK for the AMA to embrace drones" or something close to that . In that title , My use of the word "drone" really should have been "BLOS ABLE aircraft" but I didn't think that would all fit in the thread title bar . Most of the respondents understood my somewhat oddly written question and I tried my best by page 2 or 3 to make the intent clear to those few who were tripped up by my poll's language .
Last edited by init4fun; 01-04-2016 at 05:15 PM.