Originally Posted by
cj_rumley
Section 336 of 112-95 was written by AMA and their lobbyist, and FAA has by no means recognized AMA as a CBO per the dreams of the AMA Executive Council and so given them carte blanc as the ultimate authority over operations of model aircraft in the NAS ("our rules are OK.").. It doesn't mention anything about " model aviation is set aside in it's own bound off area" either, nor does it address "irresponsible sociopaths" and how FAA will deal with them. Give a little 'spect to reality.
Drones, FPV, UAS, etc. are happening despite the lethargy and sidetracking (privacy paranoia) of FAA to produce regulatory guidance other than 'no fly' until they get around to it. Meanwhile what can (or with each passing day could have been) be a significant opportunity for American businesses to exploit a technology that is going to have significant impact in the global marketplace is impatiently aware of tempus fugit. Like it not, it is coming. As of now, the only certificated sUAS for civli (commercial) use in N America comes from Canada. How much head start in the marketplace do you think PRC needs to dominate this market?
I have no problem with the commercial interests doing their thing to make a buck and creating jobs and such, and know they will have to deal with regulatory processes that will no doubt be burdensome. I hope they can deal with that successfully, but at the same time I don't want my hobby interests, affected by the developing technology, to be lumped in with their fortunes. That's why I get ticked off with your indiscriminate rants against the technology regardless of the purpose these unmanned aircraft are flown for. The only thing that makes sense and has been accepted by the regulatory authority in separating our hobby/recreational model aircraft from regulated aircraft is why they are being flown. You are not helping to preserve our freedom to fly model airplanes sans regulation by ranting against FPV as mode of flight without regard to why are being flown. AMA seems to be doing the same thing with their adventuring into involvement with the commercial use of sUAS similar to our models in the interest of new revenue generation, so though I think you are wrongheaded about this you may be consoled in that it seems you are in good company.
cj
Well, let's get a few things straight.
First, the AMA and the FAA have signed a memorandum of understanding. In it, the FAA recognizes the AMA as an authority on model aviation as defined in section 336 if 112-95. To all practical extents and purposes, the CBO thing is a done deal.
The boundary concept was a metaphor that you appear to have misunderstood.
I don't know who is ranting against FPV, there have been no statements of such in this thread. I think we all agree that FPV is a cool technology that when used responsibly can be a lot of fun and a great benefit.
I personally think that there are too many imbeciles and sociopaths out there using toys to do a man's job and they are taking entirely too many unacceptable risks.