BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Hi, thanks for your input and you're quite correct, there's lots of folks that would and should care about that sort of accident. The FAA isn't one of them which is my point.

This isn't about models getting banned from parks or municipalities or flying over private property or posting videos of stupid and unsafe practices.

This is solely related to operating remotely piloted vehicles in the national airspace system.

In the end this isn't even about true model aviation, its about UAV operations and we are, unfortunately, going to likely suffer colartoral damage.

Silent-AV8R

What he said +1

KidEpoxy

If that were the case,
the sUAS ARC text would be blank pages for Section2 and Section3 (the Model killing parts),
and the rest of the anti-UAS stuff would be there as is.
However, that is not what we saw.
We saw a whole bunch of stupid s3.3 Models Only junk that had NOTHING to do with other aircraft.

Who put the s3.3 Metal Propeller ban in the Models Only part? The Boeing rep? The HomelandSec rep? The UAV guys?
What genius put the part that says a quiet 2/60 model is safer to Aviation than a loud 2/60 model?

No, there was a lot of JUNK in the arc aimed at regulating models JUST for the sake of regulating models

KidEpoxy

well, the problem you are having is that you are listening to what the FAA is saying,
and having faith it that.

FAA says they dont want to regulate MA, but we all know thats exactly what will happen.
FAA says 2Tier is dead, but we dont see how that will be possible.
FAA says CalTrans can kick models off airports by invoking FAAs name, even though it dont work like that
FAA said few years ago that models ARE limited to 55lb, while AMA was and still issues overweight waivers

The FAA says a lot of things,
whats important is what FAA publishes in numbered documents.

Heck, they wont even let AMA tape what they said at the expo,
I guess so they wont get caught on tape telling fibs, making stuff up, and leaking pre-NPRM stuff to just 1(preferential treatment) potential CBO

Silent-AV8R

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Nobody who has actually had direct contact and who is actively working on the situation shares it, but that's OK.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

I wonder how this happened?...

http://www.aero-news.net

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

So I take it they don't like turbines

Silent-AV8R

Somebody sent the editor at ANN the links to the two documents that showed up on the AMA site recently. These have been confirmed to be "old" information from the dark times near the end of last year. But it is not all bad I think since it raises awareness out in the aviation community. I just wish they had used a different photo.

Silent-AV8R

The AMA loves turbines, Rich is a strong supporter as well. There were some on the ARC who reportedly had some concerns, but that does not mean it is the end for them. No doubt they will be subject to some greater control, but I;ll bet that the current AMA turbine waiver program will cover most of it.

GerKonig

Check this unmanned puppy out!

http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/07/x.../?ncid=webmail

Gerry

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

I'm glad, but that one article sure gave a different impression

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I think it would have been a great benefit to the model aviation community if the focus of AMA's participation would have maintained the charge given them... to define what a model is and defend that vigorously... instead of trying to install the definition of what an AMA model is...

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

Exactly........ UAV's and models should not be brought up in the same discussion in the first place.

KidEpoxy

you are aware that FAA considers MA to actually be a subtype of UAV, right?

get familiar with faa [link=http://api.ning.com/files/6Iwt8*rbxjNVCN9tNN6GjF4*7vZ9X4DwX1Xz1KABklTVWLNpPa ALNLa*dNISMpsIJHCGZdI-CdZLyKXk7ekQk3z-brK5aCwl/frnotice_uas.pdf]Policy07[/link] on UAS (and its faa inclusion of MA there in)
the FAA is very clear that they now (and have been for a while) see 3 subtypes of UAV(uaSystems), each with its own set of rules:
Public UAS (aka Gubberment Drones) with their relaxed FAA rules,
Civil UAS (aka Comercial UAVs) with their tighter FAA rules,
Hobby UAS (aka Model Aircraft) with their 'unregulated' faa rules

Silent-AV8R

The FAA defines models as a type of small Unmanned Aerial System (sUAS). They are the sole agency or group that gets to define what things are that fly. It was never up to the AMA to define it. The only thing the AMA, or any other CBO that comes along, can do is to define how we intend to safely operate our particular type (model) of sUAS.

People seem to keep losing sight of that.

[email protected]

My Feedback: (2)

F.A.A. Funding can be reduced.

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

There in lies the problem, we shouldn't be and that is what I have been saying since the beginning. An exemption should have been fought for long ago.........Hobby aircraft as in our model aircraft should not be regulated by the FAA.........
Maybe the FAA better get involved with all these falling bird incidences, they fly too by god and rather recklessly when falling from the sky

KidEpoxy

Lots of folks have put cameras in their toy airplanes to take pictures of their field.
When a guy takes a picture from his toy airplane it is a Model Aircraft.
2 Years later he sells that picture to Sig, and retroactively he becomes 'commercial operation'
and that one toy airplane retroactively becomes a UAV, criminally operated without cert or license

but good news, if sig gives the money back he unbecomes a illegal UAV and is a Model Aircraft again[&:]




See the problem?
You cant separate Commercial operations and Hobby operations of the SAME CRAFT
without indeed talking about the two in the same context.
The 2 AMA political parties agree that even if the AMA did want to leave MA unregulated, they have to regulate a DEFINITION of what MA is as to say just what it is they are exempting from the UAV laws. That definition in itself can be a regulatory kick in the yayas for modeling

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

Line of sight only, no commercial intent, that should be the hobbies definition and all the difference needed......You break it and are caught, You will deal with the FAA..
KISS

Sport_Pilot

Why would you get an exemption for something that is completly unregulated? Now we may still be unregulated, but we will have to be carefull not to use airspace used by reguated aircraft. Which sucks.

Sport_Pilot

I don't think that description is accurate. You can sell pictures you never intended to sell. Happens all the time from people who take pictures from the window of full scale aircraft. This is not consider a commercial activity. It is a commercial activity only when someone hires you to take pictures. And not usually interstatecommerse either.

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

Apparently we have always been under the regulation of the FAA according to a previous post which stated the FAA has regulatory authority over anything that flies. Although maybe not directly dictated too in all ways, it seems that might change drastically in upcoming years.......We don't need or should be lumped in with the UAV guys rules and regs.

KidEpoxy

KISS????
I see you are unfamiliar with how the US Government does things [8D]

so, under the kiss you propose, a 2500lb 110ft span recreational RC 'model aircraft' can fly LOS up in FL190
cause its not like any regulations would apply that would stop it

Because I define LOS to include binoculars, no regulations to get in the way of that, right?

KISS dont work when folks have a huge stack of additional stipulations/restrictions,
that they want to impose onto everybody else,
but dont want to list them all out in the regs
cause it makes them look a little IronFist'y

I suppose you also have some stealth stipulation regarding 'aerial trespassing' and property lines
that would cut into everyones enjoyment of the US Airspace (aka models anywhere they want, no regs against it)

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

Use current set of standards already in place by the AMA..... Should have said that to remove ambiguity.... I was using the line of sight and commercial to show the difference between UAV and model aircraft, thus differentiating purpose and use.

KidEpoxy

ROFLMAO

you wanna keep it simple,
but include the big brother controlling everything about toy airplanes?