Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf    Gallery
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
    Search This Thread  
 
Printable Version


Scale Mustang Exhaust - Kit
Seller:  tony-howard
Details:   $35.00   |  5/1/2013   |  Classified Ad
We will rotate YOUR AD in this spot if you select "Forum Featured" when placing or editing your ad!

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
Page: [1] 2   next >   >>  

Tower Hobbies Get Coupon Codes Brands  
[Poll]

Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
1. An FPV-equipped model must be flown by two AMA members... Change.
  13% (8)
2. The operational range of the model is limited to... Change.
  11% (7)
3. The flight path of model operations shall be limited to... Change.
  8% (5)
4. The model weight and speed shall be limited to... Change.
  18% (11)
No changes necessary.
  48% (29)


Total Votes : 60
(last vote on : 10/4/2012 4:36 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 5/30/2012 2:50 PM   
phlpsfrnk



Posts: 500
Score: 101
Joined: 1/7/2009
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Spring Hill, FL, USA
Status: offline 		A recent written petition to the AMA to reconsider the First Person View (FPV) Operations 550.pdf raises the question of how far should the AMA go to support the FPV community?

https://www.change.org/petitions/petition-to-the-ama-regarding-fpv-model-aircraft

First Person View (FPV) Operations

1. An FPV-equipped model must be flown by two AMA members utilizing a buddy-box system. The pilot in command must be on the primary transmitter, maintain visual contact, and be prepared to assume control in the event of a problem.

2. The operational range of the model is limited to the pilot in command’s visual line of sight as defined in the Official AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code (see Radio Control, item 9).

3. The flight path of model operations shall be limited to the designated flying site and approved overfly area.

4. The model weight and speed shall be limited to a maximum of 10 pounds and 60 miles per hour.

Regards
Frank

_____________________________

It is not possible to write in such a way that cannot be misinterpreted by a reader determined to do so.

Hide Signatures
       Post #: 1

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 5/30/2012 3:00 PM   
Silent-AV8R



Posts: 4783
Score: 180
Joined: 3/16/2004
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: Orange County, CA, USA
Status: offline 		I suggest that the FPV folks behind this petition read the HR 658 text which exempts models from FAA regulation if operated under a CBO program. One requirement is:

"(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft;"

So that seems to kill one of their main points right off the bat. The AMA cannot allow operations that violate the law as written.

In addition, if they would look at the 2009 ARC memo they would see the BLOS FPV operations will likely not be allowed under the FAA sUAS rules for at least the first 3 tiers of civil/public use operations/aircraft sizes detailed in the memo.

They need to grasp that while they enjoy this type of flying, it is laughable to call it the "future of model aviation."

So in my mind the AMA should leave the 550 document as is, since they really have no other option.

_____________________________

Be aware and prepared, or pay the price of ignorance.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to phlpsfrnk)
       Post #: 2

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 5/30/2012 3:06 PM   
phlpsfrnk



Posts: 500
Score: 101
Joined: 1/7/2009
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Spring Hill, FL, USA
Status: offline 		Well put, thank you Silent.

_____________________________

It is not possible to write in such a way that cannot be misinterpreted by a reader determined to do so.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Silent-AV8R)
       Post #: 3

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 5/30/2012 3:16 PM   
Sport_Pilot



Posts: 12484
Score: 233
Joined: 1/22/2002
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline 		To say that it is operating within visual line of sght does not mean you have to be actually looking at it.  Only that you can if you bother to look at it.

Also the law as written was to the FAA for guidance on writing their regulation.  This will be more concrete after the regulations are written, commented on, and rewritten.  To allow FPV or any present activities does not violate any law until such regulations are enacted.

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

Hide Signatures

(in reply to phlpsfrnk)
       Post #: 4

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 5/30/2012 4:11 PM   
phlpsfrnk



Posts: 500
Score: 101
Joined: 1/7/2009
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Spring Hill, FL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

To say that it is operating within visual line of sght does not mean you have to be actually looking at it.  Only that you can if you bother to look at it.

Also the law as written was to the FAA for guidance on writing their regulation.  This will be more concrete after the regulations are written, commented on, and rewritten.  To allow FPV or any present activities does not violate any law until such regulations are enacted.

The subject of the poll is about changing 550.pdf.

Regards
Frank

_____________________________

It is not possible to write in such a way that cannot be misinterpreted by a reader determined to do so.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)
       Post #: 5

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 5/30/2012 6:39 PM   
Hossfly



Posts: 5629
Score: 443
Joined: 12/3/2001
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: New Caney, TX, USA
Status: offline 		I voted No Changes needed.

I sent this message:
https://www.change.org/petitions/petition-to-the-ama-regarding-fpv-model-aircraft

Should the AMA consider changes to the FPV rules?


I signed their petition as an OBJECTOR to FPV out side the pilot's view.
I object to any toy airplane being outside the ground pilot's eye-sight. I have survived large bird hits, at low level and up to 18,000 ft. MSL. I have had ALMOST Mid-Airs with several light airplanes, (the ones I SAW ) on their little excursions.

While I know nothing about current military low level activities, I see both military and civil helicopters almost daily at less than an estimated 1000 FT. AGL. I well remember the attention it takes a jet pilot when on a 1000+ mile low level bomb-run. BTDT!

If a guy quits AMA because of AMA's position reference FPV, then so be it.

_____________________________

Horrace Cain AMA L-93

“Peace is the brief glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading." T. Jefferson

Hide Signatures

(in reply to phlpsfrnk)
       Post #: 6

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 5/30/2012 7:59 PM   
bkdavy



Posts: 2111
Score: 146
Joined: 9/28/2004
Last Login: 5/19/2013
From: FrederickMD, USA
Status: offline 		The only change I would make to the FPV guidelines would be removal of the weight/speed requirement. If the plane is operated IAW all other AMA rules, on a buddy box, within VLOS, the weight and speed restrictions add nothing.

Brad

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Hossfly)
       Post #: 7

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 6/1/2012 2:15 PM   
bradpaul



Posts: 662
Score: 138
Joined: 1/2/2002
Last Login: 5/22/2013
From: Apopka, FL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

I suggest that the FPV folks behind this petition read the HR 658 text which exempts models from FAA regulation if operated under a CBO program. One requirement is:

"(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft;"

So that seems to kill one of their main points right off the bat. The AMA cannot allow operations that violate the law as written.

In addition, if they would look at the 2009 ARC memo they would see the BLOS FPV operations will likely not be allowed under the FAA sUAS rules for at least the first 3 tiers of civil/public use operations/aircraft sizes detailed in the memo.

They need to grasp that while they enjoy this type of flying, it is laughable to call it the "future of model aviation."

So in my mind the AMA should leave the 550 document as is, since they really have no other option.


Excellent point, and to put it in clear language..........

A CBO (i.e. AMA or any other) has NO AUTHORITY to allow RC model aircraft flight BEYOND VISUAL LINE OF SIGHT (VLOS) either for FPV or non FPV flying.

Brad



Hide Signatures

(in reply to Silent-AV8R)
       Post #: 8

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 6/1/2012 2:18 PM   
Silent-AV8R



Posts: 4783
Score: 180
Joined: 3/16/2004
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: Orange County, CA, USA
Status: offline 		FWIW:

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/blog/2012/05/31/ama-presidents-statement-on-fpv-flight/

_____________________________

Be aware and prepared, or pay the price of ignorance.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to bradpaul)
       Post #: 9

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 6/1/2012 2:52 PM   
CashD


 

Posts: 62
Score: 100
Joined: 1/20/2010
Last Login: 4/5/2013
From: City, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bkdavy

The only change I would make to the FPV guidelines would be removal of the weight/speed requirement. If the plane is operated IAW all other AMA rules, on a buddy box, within VLOS, the weight and speed restrictions add nothing.

Brad



I am in agreement with you bkdavy.

In reading the letter posted in the original post link, my first thought was that the reasons cited were childish and unsubstantiated.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to bkdavy)
       Post #: 10

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 6/2/2012 8:20 PM   
Veraster


 

Posts: 43
Score: 100
Joined: 1/29/2012
Last Login: 6/25/2012
From: Paducah , KY, USA
Status: offline 		I fly FPV. Due to AMA rules, I can't fly fpv at the club field. I do it at my house. The feild at my house is much bigger but there are less places to land. I do it anyway because it's just fun.

I have my HAM radio license so you can't argue that this is illegal for me to do. I agree with the line of sight rule/law. However I don't think it should be mandatory to have two people doing buddy box. My transmitter isn't compatible with buddy box and I'm not spending $400+ on a transmitter that can do it. Those 2.4GHz transmitter's aren't even compatible with my video transmitting equipment so even if I could shell out that huge amount of money on something I wouldn't spend it on a transmitter I don't need. I am forced to use old but still fully functional 72MHz control equipment which doesn't have buddy box (or at least mine doesn't).

I also think the 10 pound and 60mph limit is just a little harsh. My plane weighs less than 10 pounds but I don't see why people shoudln't be allowed to fly fpv on their huge 108 inchers. I don't know how fast I go but I doubt I stay under the 60mph speed limit.

The bottom line is that I can't buy a whole new transmitter just to use buddy box and I'm not willing to comply with the 60mph speed limit. So I just fly at my house in the middle of nowhere outside of AMA rules. It's just having fun like we are all trying to do


Hide Signatures

(in reply to CashD)
       Post #: 11

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 6/2/2012 8:54 PM   
Silent-AV8R



Posts: 4783
Score: 180
Joined: 3/16/2004
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: Orange County, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Not sure what having your amateur radio license has to do with anything, especially since you are flying on 72 and not 6-meters. I suspect down the line that the FAA rules will not allow it for models that are not operating under AMA/CBO rules, and if you are operating under AMA rules then you will need to comply with those.

_____________________________

Be aware and prepared, or pay the price of ignorance.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Veraster)
       Post #: 12

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 6/2/2012 9:17 PM   
DadsToysBG



Posts: 2438
Score: 125
Joined: 8/1/2003
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Bowling Green, KY, USA
Status: offline 		At this point in time Veraster can do what ever he wants on his property. He has no AMA coverage. And any accident is on his HO only. Now when the FAA finally does come out with their rules and he still flys FPV's the way he wants too, he'll have to answer to the FAA should he have a accident that causes property or bodily harm. Dennis

_____________________________

DadstoysRC. I fly what I sell
CD Vette City Big Bird

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Silent-AV8R)
       Post #: 13

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 6/3/2012 12:04 AM   
cj_rumley


 

Posts: 753
Score: 147
Joined: 9/21/2009
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Aguanga, CA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

Not sure what having your amateur radio license has to do with anything, especially since you are flying on 72 and not 6-meters. I suspect down the line that the FAA rules will not allow it for models that are not operating under AMA/CBO rules, and if you are operating under AMA rules then you will need to comply with those.




What business of FAA is the frequency he is flying on?

If you meant something something else by 'it' in saying you suspect FAA rules will not allow 'it,' what is 'it?'

If 'it' is FPV ops by non-CBO modelers, they would have merry chase enforcing a ban.   There's a lot of FPV modeling going on, and darn little of it in places where AMA has any influence or visibility of it..........nor cash flow from it.   Some in AMA are attempting to be less inhospitable to modelers with an interest in it.   



Hide Signatures

(in reply to Silent-AV8R)
       Post #: 14

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 6/3/2012 1:26 AM   
Silent-AV8R



Posts: 4783
Score: 180
Joined: 3/16/2004
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: Orange County, CA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cj_rumley

What business of FAA is the frequency he is flying on?



I was speaking to flying FPV.


_____________________________

Be aware and prepared, or pay the price of ignorance.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to cj_rumley)
       Post #: 15

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 6/3/2012 1:27 AM   
Silent-AV8R



Posts: 4783
Score: 180
Joined: 3/16/2004
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: Orange County, CA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DadsToysBG

At this point in time Veraster can do what ever he wants on his property. He has no AMA coverage. And any accident is on his HO only. Now when the FAA finally does come out with their rules and he still flys FPV's the way he wants too, he'll have to answer to the FAA should he have a accident that causes property or bodily harm. Dennis



Exactly my thoughts.

_____________________________

Be aware and prepared, or pay the price of ignorance.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to DadsToysBG)
       Post #: 16

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 6/3/2012 4:13 AM   
804


 

Posts: 1043
Score: 172
Joined: 9/17/2005
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: sheridan, IN, USA
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Veraster

I fly FPV. Due to AMA rules, I can't fly fpv at the club field. I do it at my house. The feild at my house is much bigger but there are less places to land. I do it anyway because it's just fun.

I have my HAM radio license so you can't argue that this is illegal for me to do. I agree with the line of sight rule/law. However I don't think it should be mandatory to have two people doing buddy box. My transmitter isn't compatible with buddy box and I'm not spending $400+ on a transmitter that can do it. Those 2.4GHz transmitter's aren't even compatible with my video transmitting equipment so even if I could shell out that huge amount of money on something I wouldn't spend it on a transmitter I don't need. I am forced to use old but still fully functional 72MHz control equipment which doesn't have buddy box (or at least mine doesn't).

I also think the 10 pound and 60mph limit is just a little harsh. My plane weighs less than 10 pounds but I don't see why people shoudln't be allowed to fly fpv on their huge 108 inchers. I don't know how fast I go but I doubt I stay under the 60mph speed limit.

The bottom line is that I can't buy a whole new transmitter just to use buddy box and I'm not willing to comply with the 60mph speed limit. So I just fly at my house in the middle of nowhere outside of AMA rules. It's just having fun like we are all trying to do


It's a bit hard, for me at least, to accept the position that you can't afford a tx capable of buddy boxing, when excellent used 72 equipment (such as my JR 9303, sold for $100 incl. a dozen rx's) are available out there
for pennies on the dollar.


OTOH, I agree with you that the buddy boxing requirement is a bit nanny-ish.
The speed and weight rule seems arbitrary, where did those numbers come from?

It would be interesting to see how many FPV'ers would take advantage of an AMA club facility if those two rules were relaxed.
My opinion is, not many, since to me, flying within LOS (and the property boundaries many clubs establish) would make FPV rather boring.

And, if FAA were after all to bless BLOS FPV, I can't see AMA doing the same, since they ultimately have to answer to Westchester, or similar, as to what is acceptable
use of our hobby aircraft.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Veraster)
       Post #: 17

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 6/3/2012 5:33 AM   
Silent-AV8R



Posts: 4783
Score: 180
Joined: 3/16/2004
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: Orange County, CA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 804

And, if FAA were after all to bless BLOS FPV,



If you read the ARC memo from April 2009 you will see that BLOS operations for commercial/public agency sUAS is likely not going to be permitted except for the largest classes. The more typical model size sUAS will likely be prohibited to fly BLOS. Given that, I am betting it is unlikely that the AMA will permit it regardless of the insurance concerns.

_____________________________

Be aware and prepared, or pay the price of ignorance.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to 804)
       Post #: 18

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 6/3/2012 12:31 PM   
804


 

Posts: 1043
Score: 172
Joined: 9/17/2005
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: sheridan, IN, USA
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


quote:

ORIGINAL: 804

And, if FAA were after all to bless BLOS FPV,



If you read the ARC memo from April 2009 you will see that BLOS operations for commercial/public agency sUAS is likely not going to be permitted except for the largest classes. The more typical model size sUAS will likely be prohibited to fly BLOS. Given that, I am betting it is unlikely that the AMA will permit it regardless of the insurance concerns.

Yes, I know.
My point is that I think AMA's hands are tied with regard to BLOS from both directions, FAA and Big Daddy insurance.


Hide Signatures

(in reply to Silent-AV8R)
       Post #: 19

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 6/3/2012 3:23 PM   
rgburrill



Posts: 677
Score: 126
Joined: 12/31/2010
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Trumbull, CT, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk

A recent written petition to the AMA to reconsider the First Person View (FPV) Operations 550.pdf raises the question of how far should the AMA go to support the FPV community?



How far?  FPV has been a thorn in AMA's side for at least the 20 years I have been in it.  And quite rightly so.  It's not that FPV by itself is bad - it's that the people who do it just don't believe in rules.  And they destroy our entire community with their blatant disregard for those rules.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to phlpsfrnk)
       Post #: 20

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 6/3/2012 5:56 PM   
warningshot



Posts: 340
Score: 100
Joined: 2/2/2006
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: S.E., OK, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rgburrill


quote:

ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk

A recent written petition to the AMA to reconsider the First Person View (FPV) Operations 550.pdf raises the question of how far should the AMA go to support the FPV community?



How far?  FPV has been a thorn in AMA's side for at least the 20 years I have been in it.  And quite rightly so.  It's not that FPV by itself is bad - it's that the people who do it just don't believe in rules.  And they destroy our entire community with their blatant disregard for those rules.

But yet many of them are AMA members.

_____________________________

Freedom Isn''t Free
USAF (Ret) 1961-1981

Hide Signatures

(in reply to rgburrill)
       Post #: 21

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 6/4/2012 4:42 AM   
Sport_Pilot



Posts: 12484
Score: 233
Joined: 1/22/2002
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


quote:

ORIGINAL: 804

And, if FAA were after all to bless BLOS FPV,



If you read the ARC memo from April 2009 you will see that BLOS operations for commercial/public agency sUAS is likely not going to be permitted except for the largest classes. The more typical model size sUAS will likely be prohibited to fly BLOS. Given that, I am betting it is unlikely that the AMA will permit it regardless of the insurance concerns.



There is no requirement to comply with AMA rules, especially from your private property. However, It would be a problem if making a claim against the AMA insurance.

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Silent-AV8R)
       Post #: 22

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 6/4/2012 6:50 AM   
Silent-AV8R



Posts: 4783
Score: 180
Joined: 3/16/2004
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: Orange County, CA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot


quote:

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


quote:

ORIGINAL: 804

And, if FAA were after all to bless BLOS FPV,



If you read the ARC memo from April 2009 you will see that BLOS operations for commercial/public agency sUAS is likely not going to be permitted except for the largest classes. The more typical model size sUAS will likely be prohibited to fly BLOS. Given that, I am betting it is unlikely that the AMA will permit it regardless of the insurance concerns.



There is no requirement to comply with AMA rules, especially from your private property. However, It would be a problem if making a claim against the AMA insurance.



That is the current situation. I was speaking of in the future when I suspect that the FAA will prohibit FPV-BLOS for most civil/public agency sUAS as well as non CBO/AMA models. If that is the case then I strongly suspect that the AMA will not have more lax restrictions on FPV. But we will have to wait to see what the FAA actually does.

_____________________________

Be aware and prepared, or pay the price of ignorance.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)
       Post #: 23

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 6/4/2012 5:18 PM   
KidEpoxy



Posts: 6681
Score: 431
Joined: 10/14/2004
Last Login: 11/18/2012
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warningshot


quote:

ORIGINAL: rgburrill
quote:

ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk
A recent written petition to the AMA to reconsider the First Person View (FPV) Operations 550.pdf raises the question of how far should the AMA go to support the FPV community?


How far?  FPV has been a thorn in AMA's side for at least the 20 years I have been in it.  And quite rightly so.  It's not that FPV by itself is bad - it's that the people who do it just don't believe in rules.  And they destroy our entire community with their blatant disregard for those rules.


But yet many of them are AMA members.


+1
The ONLY people that CAN break ama rules are ama members.

I know a Dry parish in Louisiana,
do we say all the folks in america that drink beer are breaking the rules?

Of course not,
that one parish's rules dont apply outside the parish,
just as that one member org's(AMA) rules dont apply outside the membership.

Perhaps if someone considers the few badapple PFV rulebreakers can tarnish the whole FPV community,
then surely that person would say a few badapple AMA member rulebreakers tarnish the whole AMA.
Of course, I dont slur an entire aeromodeling discipline over the action of a few bad apples,
but that seems to be a popular way to do things among AMA members & leaders
... yet they cry foul when it is done to them

Hide Signatures

(in reply to warningshot)
       Post #: 24

RE: Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf - 6/4/2012 5:37 PM   
littlecrankshaf



Posts: 4101
Score: 259
Joined: 12/9/2001
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: here
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

quote:

ORIGINAL: warningshot


quote:

ORIGINAL: rgburrill
quote:

ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk
A recent written petition to the AMA to reconsider the First Person View (FPV) Operations 550.pdf raises the question of how far should the AMA go to support the FPV community?


How far?  FPV has been a thorn in AMA's side for at least the 20 years I have been in it.  And quite rightly so.  It's not that FPV by itself is bad - it's that the people who do it just don't believe in rules.  And they destroy our entire community with their blatant disregard for those rules.


But yet many of them are AMA members.


+1
The ONLY people that CAN break ama rules are ama members.

I know a Dry parish in Louisiana,
do we say all the folks in america that drink beer are breaking the rules?

Of course not,
that one parish's rules dont apply outside the parish,
just as that one member org's(AMA) rules dont apply outside the membership.

Perhaps if someone considers the few badapple PFV rulebreakers can tarnish the whole FPV community,
then surely that person would say a few badapple AMA member rulebreakers tarnish the whole AMA.
Of course, I dont slur an entire aeromodeling discipline over the action of a few bad apples,
but that seems to be a popular way to do things among AMA members & leaders
... yet they cry foul when it is done to them


Kid,

You do know that by paying AMA $58 a year, one is immune from the scrutiny that plagues the rest of the modeling community, don't you??? AMA is good, the light and the way of salvation...





_____________________________

Wow! Another epiphany…that is why the suckups suckup. Super sucking protection power. Yea baby.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 25

Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>  
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> Should the AMA consider changing FPV Ops 550.pdf
Page: [1] 2   next >   >>  




Jump to:


 
Google 



Search | Marketplace | Event Calendar | Local Clubs | Magazine | Product Ratings | New Products | Discussion Forums

Photo Gallery | Instructor Search | Field|Track|Marina Search

Advertisers | Hobby Vendor Resources | Rate Manufacturers | Sign In/Sign Up

SITE MAP!   : :   FORUM RULES

RC Universe is a service of Internet Brands, Inc. Copyright © 2001-2013.

Charities we support that also need your help
Yorkie Rescue | Humane Society | ASPCA | Crohn's-Colitis America


1.328RCU1