BV's letters to AMA and FAA
08-02-2014, 04:34 PM
#277
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: zionsville, IN,
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"On the other hand, tens of thousands of anonymous quad copters flying thousands of feet, far beyond the line of sight without any accountability, requiring no training, no connection to any organization ; sky is the limit."
Again I bring up the "fear in order to control" aspect of this argument....
08-03-2014, 04:30 AM
#278
NEW TIME MAGAZINE ARTICLE :Martha Stewart , "Why I Love My Drone"
http://time.com/3053003/martha-stewart-drone/
http://time.com/3053003/martha-stewart-drone/
08-03-2014, 04:44 AM
#279
I agree with your statements, I made some of them myself in previous posts. It's ridiculous that the hobby is coming under fire at all; I'm actually a bit of a stakeholder ($) in the emerging civil and commercial UAS industry, that is to say that I'm a proponent, which doesn't have much to do with our hobby, from an operations perspective. My primary point about jets, is statistical, math really, several hundred better than average pilots vs. many thousands of first timers. Obviously I would rather get hit in the head with a foamy than a jet. Unless someone is insane, it isn't likely that a turbine powered jet will be flown via FPV at 3000 ft. Cheers
08-03-2014, 04:50 AM
#280
Is there some local/state or federal statute that declares this? If so please provide a source!
"On the other hand, tens of thousands of anonymous quad copters flying thousands of feet, far beyond the line of sight without any accountability, requiring no training, no connection to any organization ; sky is the limit."
Again I bring up the "fear in order to control" aspect of this argument....
"On the other hand, tens of thousands of anonymous quad copters flying thousands of feet, far beyond the line of sight without any accountability, requiring no training, no connection to any organization ; sky is the limit."
Again I bring up the "fear in order to control" aspect of this argument....
08-03-2014, 10:26 AM
#281
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: , CA
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Counterintuitive? Not at all. The type of jet you are referring to is in the $20k range, and they require a substantial level of technical and piloting expertise to operate them. This sector of the hobby requires a huge investment and carries with it a substantial liability. Therefore, no one who is flying large scale jets takes it lightly or casually, not everyone is intelligent to be sure; but our community is very small respective to the park flyer/ foamie / quad community. In addition, we must earn a turbine waiver(license) and belong to the AMA (in the U.S.) in order to fly jets. It's nearly impossible for a model jet flyer to fly via FPV, lose control and crash and burn( Lipos burn much easier and more frequently) while remaining ANONYMOUS. Both the AMA and FAA know where to find us. Have you ever flown a large scale turbine jet? It's a whole different ball game. On the other hand, tens of thousands of anonymous quad copters flying thousands of feet, far beyond the line of sight without any accountability, requiring no training, no connection to any organization ; sky is the limit. This is the primary concern of the FAA for a reason. Flying a fast, heavy jet via FPV seems insane, whereas flying smaller lightweight FPV aircraft SEEMS OK, and THIS my friend isCOUNTERINTUITIVE! Can I get a + 1 from a fellow jet guy- cheers
08-03-2014, 11:08 AM
#282
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: , CA
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I really think is sad is that so many so called friends that share same basic interests, can so easily throw another under the bus to win favor of controling entities that don't give a damn about them. I've never flown FPV yet But I think I would dig it, so I'll try it at some point. Let's not treat any part of the hobby with predjudice. The thing is that lots of products can be dangerous, and those usually come with warnings and safety manuals. and those that follow safe procedure, most likely have no problem. There will always be those that don't even when They know the rules. That's where personal responsibility and liability for criminal negligence comes in. Let's grow a set and not let Our rights be eroded based on what some idiot does, AMA member or not. If that idiot willfully disregards safety and it can be proven in court guilty of endangerment of public safety, Then that person deserves whats coming on an individual basis. not the entire modeling community. Just My 2CTS
08-03-2014, 01:03 PM
#283
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: zionsville, IN,
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would refer you to the AMA website pertaining to the Turbine Waiver. Our local club requires both AMA membership and a turbine waiver to fly jets, it is a county park and reg. The idea is for the AMA to regulate the hobby, not the FAA, if we don't respect the AMA's rules/ guidelines then I will be able to refer you to Federal statutes in the near future.
08-03-2014, 01:38 PM
#284
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: , CA
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=jmodguy;11853997]I am aware of the AMAs turbine requirements. Outside of the AMA there is no statute requiring anything. Your previous statement was that AMA membership and their turbine waiver is required to fly jets in the US. You should have specified "at your field", but didn't therefore your statement was misleading...
The waiver is also required to fly at any AMA sanctioned event which is the only reason I keep AMA. since I'm a multi-homeowner with multi- insurance policies, AMA's provided coverage is secondary and therefore useless to Me.
The waiver is also required to fly at any AMA sanctioned event which is the only reason I keep AMA. since I'm a multi-homeowner with multi- insurance policies, AMA's provided coverage is secondary and therefore useless to Me.
08-04-2014, 07:07 AM
#285
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest, the fact the jet guys flying 200 mph,100 lb, kerosene laden and prone-to-explode-on-impact aircraft are not a threat, but are concerned that a kid flying his scratch built foam+tape FPV model weighing less than a pound is likely to cause some catastrophe is more than a little bit counterintuitive.
That being said, I have nothing against any form of modelling or flying, but accidents happen in all scopes of this hobby and the most inherent danger will always be with the heavier and faster aircraft.
That being said, I have nothing against any form of modelling or flying, but accidents happen in all scopes of this hobby and the most inherent danger will always be with the heavier and faster aircraft.
08-04-2014, 07:13 AM
#286
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll tell you the moron that is going to ruin this for everyone. It will be the idiot with the shotgun that decides to take it upon himself to shoot down that drone and hits and kills the kid standing in front of him. Or, it will be the jerk jamming the signal causing the quad to impact on a car with the whole family inside traveling down the freeway returning from church on a Sunday morning killing them all. Yeah, go ahead and shoot them down idiot and you better hope they don't hit something or someone on impact. I have yet to read any reports of a drone hitting any airliner and for that matter lets look a the Florida incident. The pilot reported an R/C Jet. Not a quad.
We can all draw scenarios, these are mine. Quads and planes can co-exist at the field along with those that fly FPV. Resistance to park fliers was rampant several years ago and in some areas still is until those that resisted found out how "Cool" it was to fly in there front yard. Now almost everyone has one. The same thing with Lipo's, many resisted, now they're main stream.
BTW, I have yet to see a video of a Phantom with a lipo crash resulting in a fireball and mushroom cloud.
I give it about a year and good ole boy BV will be jumping on the bandwagon offering BV drones to the unsuspecting general public, He's only trying to protect his own interests.
We can all draw scenarios, these are mine. Quads and planes can co-exist at the field along with those that fly FPV. Resistance to park fliers was rampant several years ago and in some areas still is until those that resisted found out how "Cool" it was to fly in there front yard. Now almost everyone has one. The same thing with Lipo's, many resisted, now they're main stream.
BTW, I have yet to see a video of a Phantom with a lipo crash resulting in a fireball and mushroom cloud.
I give it about a year and good ole boy BV will be jumping on the bandwagon offering BV drones to the unsuspecting general public, He's only trying to protect his own interests.
08-04-2014, 07:15 AM
#287
Yes he is missing the point and shut the hell up.
08-04-2014, 07:28 AM
#288
To be honest, the fact the jet guys flying 200 mph,100 lb, kerosene laden and prone-to-explode-on-impact aircraft are not a threat, but are concerned that a kid flying his scratch built foam+tape FPV model weighing less than a pound is likely to cause some catastrophe is more than a little bit counterintuitive.
That being said, I have nothing against any form of modelling or flying, but accidents happen in all scopes of this hobby and the most inherent danger will always be with the heavier and faster aircraft.
That being said, I have nothing against any form of modelling or flying, but accidents happen in all scopes of this hobby and the most inherent danger will always be with the heavier and faster aircraft.
Lets look at some facts, shall we.
Facts:
These "drones" are what this FAA thing is all about.
These "drones" have made the news WAY more than any R/C jet ever has.
These "drones" are posting vids of themselves doing VERY dangerous things.
These "drones" are being "caught" by other people videoing doing very dangerous things.
An r/c jet is like the ONLY r/c related vehicle that has NOT killed anyone. Your props and heli's are the deadliest.
Now, have r/c jets not killed anyone because we're "better" than you?
I'd like to think so, but that's probably not it. We sink tens of thousands in some of our models and we have alot to lose when they crash. And we care DEARLY about our models knowing that our actions can have consequences for people all around the world. See? That's called responsibility.
Some day an r/c jet may indeed kill someone. I hope I never see it. And it's threads like this that helps remind me, and us, that we care about what we do.
And we should ALWAYS have fun doing it.
08-04-2014, 08:17 AM
#289
Lets look at some facts, shall we.
Facts:
These "drones" are what this FAA thing is all about.
These "drones" have made the news WAY more than any R/C jet ever has.
These "drones" are posting vids of themselves doing VERY dangerous things.
These "drones" are being "caught" by other people videoing doing very dangerous things.
An r/c jet is like the ONLY r/c related vehicle that has NOT killed anyone. Your props and heli's are the deadliest.
Now, have r/c jets not killed anyone because we're "better" than you?
I'd like to think so, but that's probably not it. We sink tens of thousands in some of our models and we have alot to lose when they crash. And we care DEARLY about our models knowing that our actions can have consequences for people all around the world. See? That's called responsibility.
Some day an r/c jet may indeed kill someone. I hope I never see it. And it's threads like this that helps remind me, and us, that we care about what we do.
And we should ALWAYS have fun doing it.
08-04-2014, 08:17 AM
#290
I keep wondering what would draw action regarding careless FPV flying, something like this just might, at least on a local level on a privacy level. I support the idea of it when used within the bounds of the safety code. I wonder if the AMA should fragment to support and nurture that aspect of the hobby within a framework, id'd aircraft, licensing, etc. While the base organization stays a more conservative course.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2461822,00.asp
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2461822,00.asp
08-04-2014, 09:00 AM
#292
I agree with the cops on this one! Those were not flown with any regard to any sane set of rules or common sense. They were just trying to cause trouble. I would be happy to seperate AMA from these people, but not the FPV crowd that fly within the AMA rules. They do include FPV with a fixed wing aircraft.
08-04-2014, 09:28 AM
#293
[QUOTE=F-16 viperman;11854016]
In many cases, the AMA (site owner) insurance is the only reason you have a field to fly at in the first place. Forget the "event". The AMA insurance I am worried about is the first dollar site owner insurance. I agree, for many (if not most) AMA members flying "typical" RC model, the individual (secondary) coverage is not that valuable. The flying site insurance however is VITAL.
Conversely, this is why the AMA is worth so little to most FPV guys. They don't fly at a "normal" field that much anyway, so site owner insurance has no meaning.
Another reason the AMA should just stay out of this FPV battle.
Conversely, this is why the AMA is worth so little to most FPV guys. They don't fly at a "normal" field that much anyway, so site owner insurance has no meaning.
Another reason the AMA should just stay out of this FPV battle.
Last edited by mr_matt; 08-04-2014 at 09:30 AM.
08-04-2014, 09:32 AM
#294
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: , ON, CANADA
Posts: 974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I think the IC requirements for a HAM license is a good compromise at keeping people educated and "known" without being too restrictive on serious hobbyists.
08-04-2014, 09:43 AM
#295
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: , CA
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=mr_matt;11854475]
In many cases, the AMA (site owner) insurance is the only reason you have a field to fly at in the first place. Forget the "event". The AMA insurance I am worried about is the first dollar site owner insurance. I agree, for many (if not most) AMA members flying "typical" RC model, the individual (secondary) coverage is not that valuable. The flying site insurance however is VITAL.
Conversely, this is why the AMA is worth so little to most FPV guys. They don't fly at a "normal" field that much anyway, so site owner insurance has no meaning.
Another reason the AMA should just stay out of this FPV battle.
I see Your point, however I don't fly with clubs unless it is an event. I have My own site, or I fly at the dry lake. I'm not a member of any club. AMA's land coverage is only usefull to club members at a AMA chartered field.
In many cases, the AMA (site owner) insurance is the only reason you have a field to fly at in the first place. Forget the "event". The AMA insurance I am worried about is the first dollar site owner insurance. I agree, for many (if not most) AMA members flying "typical" RC model, the individual (secondary) coverage is not that valuable. The flying site insurance however is VITAL.
Conversely, this is why the AMA is worth so little to most FPV guys. They don't fly at a "normal" field that much anyway, so site owner insurance has no meaning.
Another reason the AMA should just stay out of this FPV battle.
08-04-2014, 10:32 AM
#297
08-04-2014, 10:37 AM
#298
what goes on in in the world. Ha Ha Ha. Good luck in life with this attitude .
Last edited by Bravo77; 08-04-2014 at 10:48 AM. Reason: changes
08-04-2014, 11:19 AM
#299
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: , CA
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If You really want to laugh at an ironic truth, watch the movie "Team America". And then seriously imagine what the world would be like without "US".