AMA loyalty
05-05-2016, 04:18 AM
#26
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those who don't like that the AMA chose to include (embrace is the wrong word, include is a much more accurate description of what they did) drones into its recognition of the hobby and advocation for hobby rights, my question is what would have had them do? Do you want the AMA to intentionally alienate the fastest growing segment of the RC hobby? Do you want the AMA to become a traditionalist organization that only recognizes hobby activities before a certain date? If so, what date? Would you have wanted the AMA to leave the nubile drone hobby to its own devices to figure out its own safety practices without the AMA's experience to guide them? And more that anything else, did you really want the AMA to create a permanent rift between drone pilots and traditional flyers? What's actually happening in the drone world is very similar to what happened to RC 40 years ago. that worked out ok most of the time. Then we got more organized and developed regulations as we grew. Drones are doing the same thing, and I predict within 10 years will be just as safe and respectable as plank flying is now.
"Then we got more organized and developed regulations as we grew." Just what government regulations are you referring too? If your referring to the CBO guidelines these are the same ones that are being ignored by the same crowd you want us to embrace.
"Do you want the AMA to intentionally alienate the fastest growing segment of the RC hobby? " Protecting what we had would have been a better start. People seem to forget that the hobby was built and supported by "traditional" R/C (for lack of a better description). Since it's the "fastest growing segment of the hobby "where are the AMA enrollment numbers to back up that they even want too or care to join the AMA. I have seen no indicators pointing to this happening.
"did you really want the AMA to create a permanent rift between drone pilots and traditional flyers" It's already here as they want nothing to do with the AMA or local clubs.
I keep hearing how "drone racing" will be the next big thing I have yet to see any numbers for spectator attendance. Words like "a large number of spectators" are printed but photos of the event seem to indicate that the participant outnumber the spectators.With that said people putting up purse money for these events do so for one reason with out spectators this will just all go away. In 10 years the AMA may just cease to exist for the decisions made over the last few years.
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 05-05-2016 at 04:21 AM.
05-05-2016, 05:45 AM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those who don't like that the AMA chose to include (embrace is the wrong word, include is a much more accurate description of what they did) drones into its recognition of the hobby and advocation for hobby rights, my question is what would have had them do? Do you want the AMA to intentionally alienate the fastest growing segment of the RC hobby? Do you want the AMA to become a traditionalist organization that only recognizes hobby activities before a certain date? If so, what date? Would you have wanted the AMA to leave the nubile drone hobby to its own devices to figure out its own safety practices without the AMA's experience to guide them? And more that anything else, did you really want the AMA to create a permanent rift between drone pilots and traditional flyers? What's actually happening in the drone world is very similar to what happened to RC 40 years ago. It started as a wild and fairly unregulated hobby with lots of yahoos doing some pretty dangerous things that worked out ok most of the time. Then we got more organized and developed regulations as we grew. Drones are doing the same thing, and I predict within 10 years will be just as safe and respectable as plank flying is now.
drone pilot eventualy turn 180 and learn how do correctly no more problme
maybe even become model pilot
many more of them then rc plane pilot so hope they dont take over ama kick us out crazy idea but how know what hapen
05-05-2016, 07:08 AM
#28
Moderator
The wild part I was referring to comes from anecdotes I hear. There were pilots being very experimental with aircraft 40 years ago, not so much anymore. There was cross country flying, flying on school sports fields, etc. People built and modified their own radios. Events were often very impromptu. Government regulations didn't come partly due to a different attitude back then, but mostly due to the hobby regulating itself. We now have official club fields, the well developed AMA rule book, and a very set way of doing things. The drive community will get there with time as well, faster if the AMA actively seeks to influence them.
05-05-2016, 08:00 AM
#29
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The wild part I was referring to comes from anecdotes I hear. There were pilots being very experimental with aircraft 40 years ago, not so much anymore. There was cross country flying, flying on school sports fields, etc. People built and modified their own radios. Events were often very impromptu. Government regulations didn't come partly due to a different attitude back then, but mostly due to the hobby regulating itself. We now have official club fields, the well developed AMA rule book, and a very set way of doing things. The drive community will get there with time as well, faster if the AMA actively seeks to influence them.
Flying on "sports fields" still goes on today with permission along with insurance , ever heard of the Park Flyers Program?
Just what is a "official club field" the AMA charters clubs and makes "suggestions" as far as field layouts along with location, nothing more.
Events have been organized since the AMA came about. As different disciplines evolved SIG"S were added to the organization.
Now lets go over the "Safety Guidelines" they were put in place for insurance purposes. You don't follow them they didn't pay.
The government regulations and involvement in our hobby came about due to irresponsible individuals plunking down cash buying a drone that any fool can fly and do as they please with it with no regard for anyone's safety or privacy. They are not modelers they are rouge pilots. In the past in if you wanted to get into R/C in order to be successfully potential modelers looked for help normally the local club. Were they were instructed in the safe operation of the model along with the advantages of becoming a AMA and club member.
It's really very simple why were are where we are. If you like we can discuss the commercial us drones and big business wanting the airspace. Amazon spent 94 million last year and has over 150 full time lobbyists greasing palms to get what they want. Between this two groups rouge operators and big business along with the AMA's failure at every turn in this mess were lucky to be flying at all.
Mike
05-05-2016, 09:51 AM
#30
Moderator
Any new technology brings growing pains. I imagine early rc pilots drew the ire of committed control line guys; imagine the safety concerns of those highly unreliable early radios and planes that weren't tied to anything! But the community worked that all out fairly quickly and the future of the hobby benefited immensely.
Where I do agree with you and others is that this new technology that makes flying so much easier has made it possible for total imbeciles to get in the air with no knowledge of flying. It's a new problem that we haven't had before, but if we will do what we've traditionally done as a community and seek workable solutions to it, we'll get where we need to be and will have a fun new dimension to the hobby to boot.
Where I do agree with you and others is that this new technology that makes flying so much easier has made it possible for total imbeciles to get in the air with no knowledge of flying. It's a new problem that we haven't had before, but if we will do what we've traditionally done as a community and seek workable solutions to it, we'll get where we need to be and will have a fun new dimension to the hobby to boot.
05-05-2016, 10:10 AM
#32
IMHO, embracing drones was necessary. I say so for several reasons.
1. Like it or not, the public will always put drones and RC airplanes and helis together. No amount of propaganda from the AMA can change that.
2. The drone hobby, as the wild cousin in this family, desperately needs some guidance. The AMA can provide that better than anyone else.
3. Drones are the most exciting thing to be done with RC technology in a long time. I'd say it's the biggest advancement since proportional control, and may well be a paradigm shift in the hobby. If that's true, rejecting it in the beginning would mean certain death for the AMA.
4. There is a lot of overlap between drones and traditional RC. I like both. So the AMA is better representing my interests by advocating and developing both hobbies, increasing its value to me as a member. I think with time pilots like me will become the majority.
5. If the AMA had officially rejected drones and tried to throw them under the bus with the FAA, they would have wound up with their own national organization eventually. That organization would likely have not been friendly to the rest of the RC community, creating a rivalry that could have become very destructive.
So all of that is to say that distancing itself from drones would have been an unlivable situation for the AMA. They made the right choice.
1. Like it or not, the public will always put drones and RC airplanes and helis together. No amount of propaganda from the AMA can change that.
2. The drone hobby, as the wild cousin in this family, desperately needs some guidance. The AMA can provide that better than anyone else.
3. Drones are the most exciting thing to be done with RC technology in a long time. I'd say it's the biggest advancement since proportional control, and may well be a paradigm shift in the hobby. If that's true, rejecting it in the beginning would mean certain death for the AMA.
4. There is a lot of overlap between drones and traditional RC. I like both. So the AMA is better representing my interests by advocating and developing both hobbies, increasing its value to me as a member. I think with time pilots like me will become the majority.
5. If the AMA had officially rejected drones and tried to throw them under the bus with the FAA, they would have wound up with their own national organization eventually. That organization would likely have not been friendly to the rest of the RC community, creating a rivalry that could have become very destructive.
So all of that is to say that distancing itself from drones would have been an unlivable situation for the AMA. They made the right choice.
05-05-2016, 10:38 AM
#33
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where I do agree with you and others is that this new technology that makes flying so much easier has made it possible for total imbeciles to get in the air with no knowledge of flying. It's a new problem that we haven't had before, but if we will do what we've traditionally done as a community and seek workable solutions to it, we'll get where we need to be and will have a fun new dimension to the hobby to boot.
Fact remains this "new" technology isn't the issue it's the morons that use it. You cannot find "workable solutions" with those who have no desire to work with us.
Mike
05-05-2016, 11:51 AM
#34
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
You can lead a horse to water........... but these guys have no use for us or the AMA as they did in the past.
Fact remains this "new" technology isn't the issue it's the morons that use it. You cannot find "workable solutions" with those who have no desire to work with us.
Mike
Fact remains this "new" technology isn't the issue it's the morons that use it. You cannot find "workable solutions" with those who have no desire to work with us.
Mike
05-05-2016, 07:48 PM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe not need us but we need them. bad.
see ama mag clubs in trouble shrinking membarship and less clubs
my club half what it was
less member more dues. more dues less member. no win
see ama mag clubs in trouble shrinking membarship and less clubs
my club half what it was
less member more dues. more dues less member. no win
05-06-2016, 03:20 AM
#36
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
You can lead a horse to water........... but these guys have no use for us or the AMA as they did in the past.
Fact remains this "new" technology isn't the issue it's the morons that use it. You cannot find "workable solutions" with those who have no desire to work with us.
Mike
Fact remains this "new" technology isn't the issue it's the morons that use it. You cannot find "workable solutions" with those who have no desire to work with us.
Mike
05-06-2016, 08:36 AM
#37
Moderator
For those who are advocating for the negative kneejerk reaction to the new technology and the new issues it causes, I have a challenge for you. Name a single interest based organization that has refused to accept innovation and has survived. I'll bet you can't. I can name quite a few who have refused to accept innovation and died, and I can name quite a few who have changed with the times and have survived. But when any purpose based organization shifts from innovating to preserving tradition, it dies within a generation.
Think about what the mindset we're seeing from Rcmike and rcpilot007 would have done to our hobby 40 years ago. Newfangled RC flying no doubt annoyed control line and free flight pilots, who I'm sure would have been happy to suppress what they were doing if not ban it outright. Had the AMA taken the traditionalist mentality that says, "This is what we are and what we're about, and anything else is wrong," RC would not have developed nearly as quickly as it did and the AMA would have been left behind as RC pilots created their own national organization to promote their interests. It would have been terrible for the hobby, and so I'm glad that the AMA was a forward thinking organization then with forward thinking members.
Autonomous flight controllers aren't the problem. FPV (BLOS or otherwise) is not the problem. Idiots are not new, nor are they the problem. The problem is the lack of maturity of this new hobby with its new technology. The AMA is being very wise to get involved in FPV and drone flight as much as possible so that it can develop that community and find new ways to apply the technology. To ignore it is to miss one of the best opportunities for growth that we've had in decades. Every organization that survives long term accepts changes and creatively solves problems so that members can enjoy the new opportunities.
Think about what the mindset we're seeing from Rcmike and rcpilot007 would have done to our hobby 40 years ago. Newfangled RC flying no doubt annoyed control line and free flight pilots, who I'm sure would have been happy to suppress what they were doing if not ban it outright. Had the AMA taken the traditionalist mentality that says, "This is what we are and what we're about, and anything else is wrong," RC would not have developed nearly as quickly as it did and the AMA would have been left behind as RC pilots created their own national organization to promote their interests. It would have been terrible for the hobby, and so I'm glad that the AMA was a forward thinking organization then with forward thinking members.
Autonomous flight controllers aren't the problem. FPV (BLOS or otherwise) is not the problem. Idiots are not new, nor are they the problem. The problem is the lack of maturity of this new hobby with its new technology. The AMA is being very wise to get involved in FPV and drone flight as much as possible so that it can develop that community and find new ways to apply the technology. To ignore it is to miss one of the best opportunities for growth that we've had in decades. Every organization that survives long term accepts changes and creatively solves problems so that members can enjoy the new opportunities.
05-06-2016, 08:42 AM
#38
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those who are advocating for the negative kneejerk reaction to the new technology and the new issues it causes, I have a challenge for you. Name a single interest based organization that has refused to accept innovation and has survived. I'll bet you can't. I can name quite a few who have refused to accept innovation and died, and I can name quite a few who have changed with the times and have survived. But when any purpose based organization shifts from innovating to preserving tradition, it dies within a generation.
Think about what the mindset we're seeing from Rcmike and rcpilot007 would have done to our hobby 40 years ago. Newfangled RC flying no doubt annoyed control line and free flight pilots, who I'm sure would have been happy to suppress what they were doing if not ban it outright. Had the AMA taken the traditionalist mentality that says, "This is what we are and what we're about, and anything else is wrong," RC would not have developed nearly as quickly as it did and the AMA would have been left behind as RC pilots created their own national organization to promote their interests. It would have been terrible for the hobby, and so I'm glad that the AMA was a forward thinking organization then with forward thinking members.
Autonomous flight controllers aren't the problem. FPV (BLOS or otherwise) is not the problem. Idiots are not new, nor are they the problem. The problem is the lack of maturity of this new hobby with its new technology. The AMA is being very wise to get involved in FPV and drone flight as much as possible so that it can develop that community and find new ways to apply the technology. To ignore it is to miss one of the best opportunities for growth that we've had in decades. Every organization that survives long term accepts changes and creatively solves problems so that members can enjoy the new opportunities.
Think about what the mindset we're seeing from Rcmike and rcpilot007 would have done to our hobby 40 years ago. Newfangled RC flying no doubt annoyed control line and free flight pilots, who I'm sure would have been happy to suppress what they were doing if not ban it outright. Had the AMA taken the traditionalist mentality that says, "This is what we are and what we're about, and anything else is wrong," RC would not have developed nearly as quickly as it did and the AMA would have been left behind as RC pilots created their own national organization to promote their interests. It would have been terrible for the hobby, and so I'm glad that the AMA was a forward thinking organization then with forward thinking members.
Autonomous flight controllers aren't the problem. FPV (BLOS or otherwise) is not the problem. Idiots are not new, nor are they the problem. The problem is the lack of maturity of this new hobby with its new technology. The AMA is being very wise to get involved in FPV and drone flight as much as possible so that it can develop that community and find new ways to apply the technology. To ignore it is to miss one of the best opportunities for growth that we've had in decades. Every organization that survives long term accepts changes and creatively solves problems so that members can enjoy the new opportunities.
No one here wants them to disappear off the face of the planet but many of us feel that protecting what we had should have been the first order of business for the AMA. Once that was accomplished than form a actual plan integrating the whole muti-rotor /FPV technology. Instead plan B was put into effect and look what that got us.
I still maintain that plan B will not get us ( them) a huge membership gain just more regulation.
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 05-06-2016 at 08:45 AM.
05-06-2016, 12:47 PM
#39
My Feedback: (6)
No one here wants them to disappear off the face of the planet but many of us feel that protecting what we had should have been the first order of business for the AMA. Once that was accomplished than form a actual plan integrating the whole muti-rotor /FPV technology. Instead plan B was put into effect and look what that got us.
I still maintain that plan B will not get us ( them) a huge membership gain just more regulation.
Mike
I still maintain that plan B will not get us ( them) a huge membership gain just more regulation.
Mike
I think that two different issues are being wrongly combined into one into the current discussion. Things have evolved into you are either 100% for unrestricted FPV/BLOS anytime anywhere or you want to see anything resembling a multi-rotor banned. This seems to be the norm for public discourse in our country today. Example: You either are totally for all the global warming/climate change thing or you want polluted air and water and babies dying in the street. You are either for totally open borders or you want to deport everyone not a third generation citizen. In this paradigm, the ones against the "traditional," defined as in previously the norm, use such bomb-throwing statements to shut down conversation. In our case we all want to "ban the drones" which will result in the total loss of our hobby for refusing to "embrace" (god I hate that word) the whole drone FPV/BLOS fly anywhere we want mentality.
First off, I don't see how not "embracing" drones will result in me not being able to continue to scratch-build fixed wing models because my hobby has ceased to exist. Or for me to buy some of the really nice ARF's available everywhere today. Enough of that.
Now to what rcmiket said. The AMA should have first protected what we already had. In the past, performance and technology limits kept us off the public radar for the most part. There was a knowledge and skills barrier that first weeded out those that did not have a true desire to learn to fly. While it was possible to teach oneself to fly, most needed the assistance of others and gravitated to clubs or groups of established hobbyists. Part of the assistance received was the learning of basic safety rules. Technology for years limited model flight to within eyesight distance and a high percentage of our operations require a prepared field of some sort (runway with open area to takeoff and land). These limitations,and our many years of responsible operations, for the most part, kept us out of the public bullseye for a long time. One of the corollaries of freedom is that you can do pretty much what you want as long as you don't infringe on others and this is what as a group we have done.
The AMA even showed considerable foresight as technology progressed. If your aircraft weighed more than 55 pounds, you had to jump through some hoops to prove your competence. If you wanted to fly a jet, more hoops were involved. Even though these aircraft still faced the same limitations as above as far as needing an established runway of some sort and line of sight limitations, AMA foresaw that prevention of any future incidents would protect us in the public space. There may have been a bit of grumbling on the specifics but this has been pretty much accepted by most in the hobby up to this point.
I think the first mistake was made with the Park Flyer program. The AMA has long dealt with the issue of losing flying fields due to homeowner complaints over noise. Remember, freedom is predicated on not infringing on others. Why would an organization that has seen the loss of many flying fields due to distant noise now promote flying your model at the local park in front of everyone's face? How is noise from an aircraft nowhere near your property a problem, but flying over a family's head while they are out for a picnic a super new facet of the hobby? Really? As a member of the public, is a distant noise a terrible issue but getting bonked on the head (from their point of view) by a stranger's airplane just another day at the park, literally?
Now the drone (for purposes of this discussion ANY aircraft capable of autonomous flight, self-navigation, and FPV/BLOS whether operated that way or not) issue. The ultimate sin was committed - our hobby came into the public eye due to the actions of a few, or more accurately more than a few. Big hurrah for Youtube. The AMA jumped to action as it should have. And unwittingly or not terribly screwed up. Their first act with the FAA should have been to say, "Hey, you know us. We have been safe for 80 years, always interacted with you in a responsible and respectable manner, and never caused you any grief. There is this new technology and we would like to help you in dealing with it. But please acknowledge our previous history and let's just deal with the new issue."
Instead their message was, "Hey, we are the AMA and this is RC just like all of our other operations. We have this safety code thing, Leave us alone and let us do whatever with no limitations despite advances in capability." Paraphrased of course. So here we are, all grouped together. I would be surprised if some in the FAA are not surprised by the AMA's all or nothing proposition. I think they would have accepted that there was a difference in capabilities between where we were prior to drones and what drones were now capable of.
The AMA will let me fly a 54 pound model, but not fly a 56 pound model at the same field under the same limitations of line of sight (because I am not using that technology) without jumping through some hoops to prove my competence. Some may argue the weight itself is arbitrary, but there needs to be a limit somewhere. Now why would the same organization now allow me to buy a drone and fly it over the horizon with cameras that the public thinks is taking pictures of their nubile young daughters in their backyards with no proof of competence to operate what is now a very advanced flying machine. A machine that is capable of flying in a manner where the operator can not see if he is a danger to full size aircraft as it is no longer in line of sight. A machine that can return home from a great distance, but all it knows is direction and height above the ground. It does not know where all the buildings, towers, etc. are. Yet the AMA is telling the FAA that if these people simply mail some money to the AMA then they can do all this. And we are seeing the FAA's answer.
All this is already done. Where to proceed? Proponents of drones are saying that this is just an infant technology and are looking forward to more advancements. The only advancements logically are increased weight, increased range and speed, and increased altitude capability, along with increased camera and other sensing device advancements. Even if we dodge the current bullet, more advancements in technology will result in more public scrutiny. And the only position the AMA is promoting is "They can join the AMA and all will be right with the world." Instead, the AMA needs to acknowledge the capabilities of this new technology and take the position with the FAA that performance capability should determine the level of regulation. The EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) supports everything from powered parachutes and ultralights to restored jet warbirds. They don't demand the same regulations for all - they acknowledge that different capabilities require different oversight. Imagine if the EAA caused ultralight pilots to have to follow all rules required by jet warbird pilots. Everyone would think that a bit stupid. Yet that is what the AMA has done. Why should we be any different?
So where to go from here?
1) AMA should first and foremost promote the differences in performance in all public discourse, just as they have with over 55 pound and turbine operations. Talk all they want about exciting new technologies, promote them and all that if they want, but differentiate between the different performance capabilities of model aviation.
2) AMA should push that all non-drone (remember my drone definition - capable of autonomous flight, self-navigation, and operation by other than line of sight limitations) operations should be allowed to operate as before based on their excellent safety history. That should be a separate discussion with the FAA, and their first priority. Attempt to draw that line as distinctly as possible as this is not the end of FAA scrutiny, just the beginning. As rcmiket said, protect what you already have.
3) Acknowledge that drones ARE a new technology and need some oversight predicated on their capabilities. Again, they require additional oversight for over 55 pound models, but not for something capable, whether you choose to do it or not, of flying over the horizon for several miles.
4) Promote strong enforcement action against lawbreakers, just as the NRA promotes strong enforcement of those convicted of gun violence. You are either for safe operation of your toy of choice or against it.
Even if we do well in this current battle, additional performance gains and additional numbers choosing to fly drones will once again bring us under scrutiny in the future. We need to begin this separation and regulation by capability immediately as other organizations such as the EAA and NRA have done. Many of the drone enthusiasts will call us "haters" because that is the world we live in. But remember they are the ones calling this an "exciting new technology." So accept that it truly is an "exciting NEW technology." Our goal should be that our level of technology has been proven safe over the period of many years and therefore deserves the privilige of minimal oversight. Good luck to the drone guys, and I mean that, but they now have to build up the many years period of safety for their operations as traditional modelers have done.
Bryan
Last edited by bdoxey; 05-06-2016 at 09:15 PM.
05-06-2016, 02:29 PM
#40
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This simple two sentence statement (bold above) distills the situation better than the thousands of comments I have read so far on this situation.
I think that two different issues are being wrongly combined into one into the current discussion. Things have evolved into you are either 100% for unrestricted FPV/BLOS anytime anywhere or you want to see anything resembling a multi-rotor banned. This seems to be the norm for public discourse in our country today. Example: You either are totally for all the global warming/climate change thing or you want polluted air and water and babies dying in the street. You are either for totally open borders or you want to deport everyone not a third generation citizen. In this paradigm, the ones against the "traditional," defined as in previously the norm, use such bomb-throwing statements to shut down conversation. In our case we all want to "ban the drones" which will result in the total loss of our hobby for refusing to "embrace" (god I hate that word) the whole drone FPV/BLOS fly anywhere we want mentality.
First off, I don't see how not "embracing" drones will result in me not being able to continue to scratch-build fixed wing models because my hobby has ceased to exist. Or for me to by some of the really nice ARF's available everywhere today. Enough of that.
Now to what rcmiket said. The AMA should have first protected what we already had. In the past, performance and technology limits kept us off the public radar for the most part. There was a knowledge and skills barrier that first weeded out those that did not have a true desire to learn to fly. While it was possible to teach oneself to fly, most needed the assistance of others and gravitated to clubs or groups of established hobbyists. Part of the assistance received was the learning of basic safety rules. Technology for years limited model flight to within eyesight distance and a high percentage of our operations require a prepared field of some sort (runway with open area to takeoff and land). These limitations,and our many years of responsible operations, for the most part, kept us out of the public bullseye for a long time. One of the corollaries of freedom is that you can do pretty much what you want as long as you don't infringe on others and this is what as a group we have done.
The AMA even showed considerable foresight as technology progressed. If your aircraft weighed more than 55 pounds, you had to jump through some hoops to prove your competence. If you wanted to fly a jet, more hoops were involved. Even though these aircraft still faced the same limitations as above as far as needing an established runway of some sort and line of sight limitations, AMA foresaw that prevention of any future incidents would protect us in the public space. There may have been a bit of grumbling on the specifics but this has been pretty much accepted by most in the hobby up to this point.
I think the first mistake was made with the Park Flyer program. The AMA has long dealt with the issue of losing flying fields due to homeowner complaints over noise. Remember, freedom is predicated on not infringing on others. Why would an organization that has seen the loss of many flying fields due to distant noise now promote flying your model at the local park in front of everyone's face? How is noise from an aircraft nowhere near your property a problem, but flying over a family's head while they are out for a picnic a super new facet of the hobby? Really? As a member of the public, is a distant noise a terrible issue but getting bonked on the head (from their point of view) by a stranger's airplane just another day at he park, literally?
Now the drone (for purposes of this discussion ANY aircraft capable of autonomous flight, self-navigation, and FPV/BLOS whether operated that way or not) issue. The ultimate sin was committed - our hobby came into the public eye due to the actions of a few, or more accurately more than a few. Big hurrah for Youtube. The AMA jumped to action as it should have. And unwittingly or not terribly screwed up. Their first act with the FAA should have been to say, "Hey, you know us. We have been safe for 80 years, always interacted with you in a responsible and respectable manner, and never caused you any grief. There is this new technology and we would like to help you in dealing with it. But please acknowledge our previous history and let's just deal with the new issue."
Instead their message was, "Hey, we are the AMA and this is RC just like all of our other operations. We have this safety code thing, Leave us alone and let us do whatever with no limitations despite advances in capability." Paraphrased of course. So here we are, all grouped together. I would be surprised if some in the FAA are not surprised by the AMA's all or nothing proposition. I think they would have accepted that there was a difference in capabilities between where we were prior to drones and what drones were now capable of.
The AMA witll let me fly a 54 pound model, but not fly a 56 pound model at the same field under the same limitations of line of sight (because I am not using that technology) without jumping through some hoops to prove my competence. Some may argue the weight itself is arbitrary, but there needs to be a limit somewhere. Now why would the same organization now allow me to buy a drone and fly it over the horizon with cameras that the public thinks is taking pictures of their nubile young daughters in their backyards with no proof of competence to operate what is now a very advanced flying machine. A machine that is capable of flying in a manner where the operator can not see if he is a danger to full size aircraft as it is no longer in line of sight. A machine that can return home from a great distance, but all it knows is direction and height above the ground. It does not know where all the buildings, towers, etc. are. Yet the AMA is telling the FAA that if these people simply mail some money to the AMA then they can do all this. And we are seeing the FAA's answer.
All this is already done. Where to proceed? Proponents of drones are saying that this is just an infant technology and are looking forward to more advancements. The only advancements logically are increased weight, increased range and speed, and increased altitude capability, along with increased camera and other sensing device advancements. Even if we dodge the current bullet, more advancements in technology will result in more public scrutiny. And the only position the AMA is promoting is "They can join the AMA and all will be right with the world." Instead, the AMA needs to acknowledge the capabilities of this new technology and take the position with the FAA that performance capability should determine the level of regulation. The EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) supports everything from powered parachutes and ultralights to restored jet warbirds. They don't demand the same regulations for all - they acknowledge that different capabilities require different oversight. Imagine if the EAA caused ultralight pilots to have to follow all rules required by jet warbird pilots. Everyone would think that a bit stupid. Yet that is what the AMA has done. Why should we be any different?
So where to go from here?
1) AMA should first and foremost promote the differences in performance in all public discourse, just as they have with over 55 pound and turbine operations. Talk all they want about exciting new technologies, promote them and all that if they want, but differentiate between the different performance capabilities of model aviation.
2) AMA should push that all non-drone (remember my drone definition - capable of autonomous flight, self-navigation, and operation by other than line of sight limitations) operations should be allowed to operate as before based on their excellent safety history. That should be a separate discussion with the FAA, and their first priority. Attempt to draw that line as distinctly as possible as this is not the end of FAA scrutiny, just the beginning. As rcmiket said, protect what you already have.
3) Acknowledge that drones ARE a new technology and need some oversight predicated on their capabilities. Again, they require additional oversight for over 55 pound models, but not for something capable, whether you choose to do it or not, of flying over the horizon for several miles.
4) Promote strong enforcement action against lawbreakers, just as the NRA promotes strong enforcement of those convicted of gun violence. You are either for safe operation of your toy of choice or against it.
Even if we do well in this current battle, additional performance gains and additional numbers choosing to fly drones will once again bring us under scrutiny in the future. We need to begin this separation and regulation by capability immediately as other organizations such as the EAA and NRA have done. Many of the drone enthusiasts will call us "haters" because that is the world we live in. But remember they are the ones calling this an "exciting new technology." So accept that it truly is an "exciting NEW technology." Our goal should be that our level of technology has been proven safe over the period of many years and therefore deserves the privilige of minimal oversight. Good luck to the drone guys, and I mean that, but they now have to build up the many years period of safety for their operations as traditional modelers have done.
Bryan
I think that two different issues are being wrongly combined into one into the current discussion. Things have evolved into you are either 100% for unrestricted FPV/BLOS anytime anywhere or you want to see anything resembling a multi-rotor banned. This seems to be the norm for public discourse in our country today. Example: You either are totally for all the global warming/climate change thing or you want polluted air and water and babies dying in the street. You are either for totally open borders or you want to deport everyone not a third generation citizen. In this paradigm, the ones against the "traditional," defined as in previously the norm, use such bomb-throwing statements to shut down conversation. In our case we all want to "ban the drones" which will result in the total loss of our hobby for refusing to "embrace" (god I hate that word) the whole drone FPV/BLOS fly anywhere we want mentality.
First off, I don't see how not "embracing" drones will result in me not being able to continue to scratch-build fixed wing models because my hobby has ceased to exist. Or for me to by some of the really nice ARF's available everywhere today. Enough of that.
Now to what rcmiket said. The AMA should have first protected what we already had. In the past, performance and technology limits kept us off the public radar for the most part. There was a knowledge and skills barrier that first weeded out those that did not have a true desire to learn to fly. While it was possible to teach oneself to fly, most needed the assistance of others and gravitated to clubs or groups of established hobbyists. Part of the assistance received was the learning of basic safety rules. Technology for years limited model flight to within eyesight distance and a high percentage of our operations require a prepared field of some sort (runway with open area to takeoff and land). These limitations,and our many years of responsible operations, for the most part, kept us out of the public bullseye for a long time. One of the corollaries of freedom is that you can do pretty much what you want as long as you don't infringe on others and this is what as a group we have done.
The AMA even showed considerable foresight as technology progressed. If your aircraft weighed more than 55 pounds, you had to jump through some hoops to prove your competence. If you wanted to fly a jet, more hoops were involved. Even though these aircraft still faced the same limitations as above as far as needing an established runway of some sort and line of sight limitations, AMA foresaw that prevention of any future incidents would protect us in the public space. There may have been a bit of grumbling on the specifics but this has been pretty much accepted by most in the hobby up to this point.
I think the first mistake was made with the Park Flyer program. The AMA has long dealt with the issue of losing flying fields due to homeowner complaints over noise. Remember, freedom is predicated on not infringing on others. Why would an organization that has seen the loss of many flying fields due to distant noise now promote flying your model at the local park in front of everyone's face? How is noise from an aircraft nowhere near your property a problem, but flying over a family's head while they are out for a picnic a super new facet of the hobby? Really? As a member of the public, is a distant noise a terrible issue but getting bonked on the head (from their point of view) by a stranger's airplane just another day at he park, literally?
Now the drone (for purposes of this discussion ANY aircraft capable of autonomous flight, self-navigation, and FPV/BLOS whether operated that way or not) issue. The ultimate sin was committed - our hobby came into the public eye due to the actions of a few, or more accurately more than a few. Big hurrah for Youtube. The AMA jumped to action as it should have. And unwittingly or not terribly screwed up. Their first act with the FAA should have been to say, "Hey, you know us. We have been safe for 80 years, always interacted with you in a responsible and respectable manner, and never caused you any grief. There is this new technology and we would like to help you in dealing with it. But please acknowledge our previous history and let's just deal with the new issue."
Instead their message was, "Hey, we are the AMA and this is RC just like all of our other operations. We have this safety code thing, Leave us alone and let us do whatever with no limitations despite advances in capability." Paraphrased of course. So here we are, all grouped together. I would be surprised if some in the FAA are not surprised by the AMA's all or nothing proposition. I think they would have accepted that there was a difference in capabilities between where we were prior to drones and what drones were now capable of.
The AMA witll let me fly a 54 pound model, but not fly a 56 pound model at the same field under the same limitations of line of sight (because I am not using that technology) without jumping through some hoops to prove my competence. Some may argue the weight itself is arbitrary, but there needs to be a limit somewhere. Now why would the same organization now allow me to buy a drone and fly it over the horizon with cameras that the public thinks is taking pictures of their nubile young daughters in their backyards with no proof of competence to operate what is now a very advanced flying machine. A machine that is capable of flying in a manner where the operator can not see if he is a danger to full size aircraft as it is no longer in line of sight. A machine that can return home from a great distance, but all it knows is direction and height above the ground. It does not know where all the buildings, towers, etc. are. Yet the AMA is telling the FAA that if these people simply mail some money to the AMA then they can do all this. And we are seeing the FAA's answer.
All this is already done. Where to proceed? Proponents of drones are saying that this is just an infant technology and are looking forward to more advancements. The only advancements logically are increased weight, increased range and speed, and increased altitude capability, along with increased camera and other sensing device advancements. Even if we dodge the current bullet, more advancements in technology will result in more public scrutiny. And the only position the AMA is promoting is "They can join the AMA and all will be right with the world." Instead, the AMA needs to acknowledge the capabilities of this new technology and take the position with the FAA that performance capability should determine the level of regulation. The EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) supports everything from powered parachutes and ultralights to restored jet warbirds. They don't demand the same regulations for all - they acknowledge that different capabilities require different oversight. Imagine if the EAA caused ultralight pilots to have to follow all rules required by jet warbird pilots. Everyone would think that a bit stupid. Yet that is what the AMA has done. Why should we be any different?
So where to go from here?
1) AMA should first and foremost promote the differences in performance in all public discourse, just as they have with over 55 pound and turbine operations. Talk all they want about exciting new technologies, promote them and all that if they want, but differentiate between the different performance capabilities of model aviation.
2) AMA should push that all non-drone (remember my drone definition - capable of autonomous flight, self-navigation, and operation by other than line of sight limitations) operations should be allowed to operate as before based on their excellent safety history. That should be a separate discussion with the FAA, and their first priority. Attempt to draw that line as distinctly as possible as this is not the end of FAA scrutiny, just the beginning. As rcmiket said, protect what you already have.
3) Acknowledge that drones ARE a new technology and need some oversight predicated on their capabilities. Again, they require additional oversight for over 55 pound models, but not for something capable, whether you choose to do it or not, of flying over the horizon for several miles.
4) Promote strong enforcement action against lawbreakers, just as the NRA promotes strong enforcement of those convicted of gun violence. You are either for safe operation of your toy of choice or against it.
Even if we do well in this current battle, additional performance gains and additional numbers choosing to fly drones will once again bring us under scrutiny in the future. We need to begin this separation and regulation by capability immediately as other organizations such as the EAA and NRA have done. Many of the drone enthusiasts will call us "haters" because that is the world we live in. But remember they are the ones calling this an "exciting new technology." So accept that it truly is an "exciting NEW technology." Our goal should be that our level of technology has been proven safe over the period of many years and therefore deserves the privilige of minimal oversight. Good luck to the drone guys, and I mean that, but they now have to build up the many years period of safety for their operations as traditional modelers have done.
Bryan
Mike
05-07-2016, 05:09 AM
#43
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Ya, pretty well said. Although I might not agree with everything he said, at least he explained himself rather than shout out meaningless slogans and absolutes. That, and demagogue the AMA. Between the sloganeering (ban drones) and laying the blame for everything at the feet of the AMA it's rare to see a lucid conversation.
05-07-2016, 05:52 AM
#44
05-07-2016, 05:54 AM
#45
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-07-2016, 06:36 AM
#46
In thinking about this...if indeed it is an AMA agent...what does it say about the non-profit if they know or allow people to do this on their behalf? Are they too "afraid" of engaging officially? Are they "afraid" of being accountable for what they say in defense of the AMA? Are they "afraid" of someone stopping them at a meet or event and engaging them?
If indeed these are AMA shills, I think it paints a far darker picture of the organization - one that knows or should know that key people are engaging as AMA "agents" in a duplicitous way. Is that what we expect from an organization that takes and spends so much of our money? Duplicity?
If indeed these are AMA shills, I think it paints a far darker picture of the organization - one that knows or should know that key people are engaging as AMA "agents" in a duplicitous way. Is that what we expect from an organization that takes and spends so much of our money? Duplicity?
05-07-2016, 07:58 AM
#47
Moderator
No one here wants them to disappear off the face of the planet but many of us feel that protecting what we had should have been the first order of business for the AMA. Once that was accomplished than form a actual plan integrating the whole muti-rotor /FPV technology. Instead plan B was put into effect and look what that got us.
I still maintain that plan B will not get us ( them) a huge membership gain just more regulation.
Mike
I still maintain that plan B will not get us ( them) a huge membership gain just more regulation.
Mike
As for the comments that most drone guys have no interest in the AMA, I say give it time. Certainly the guys who want to go buzzing around the statue of liberty or a wildfire won't join or even register their drones, but if the AMA can provide some value to them by working out insurance coverage, chartering drone specific clubs that put on interesting events, and effectively advocating for them with congress, I think a good number of them will join. Don't forget, plank flyers (I use the term affectionately) were once a group of disconnected guys who built their replicas of real planes out in the barn and flew them anywhere they could find an open space. It took time for the AMA itself to form and grow, but it did. If we take the attitude that drones are nothing to fear if flown responsibly and that they represent an opportunity instead of a problem, I think we'll see in 10 more years that they are good for the hobby and for the AMA too.
05-07-2016, 01:22 PM
#49
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
05-07-2016, 03:48 PM
#50
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I know it's easy to play both sides here and bash them no matter what, but which is it now? They either did something that you don't agree with, or they didn't try?