Silent-AV8R

I was not speaking for Rich. I was giving my impression of what his statement meant based on my knowledge of him. And I still maintain that your fixation on whether I used rules or guidelines in that post is meaningless.

llindsey1965

My Feedback: (-1)

rtk  they don't want to be a part of AMA  ,  or any other orginazition that has rules they must abide by , we have them show up at the field ever once in a while  who think they can do what they want , but not at our field ,  you must obey the rules and the first one is  YOU MUST HAVE AMA TO FLY AT THIS FIELD

cj_rumley

Maintain whatever you will. I'm just puzzled as to why you are so crabby. You and other posters venting your angst, throwing out epithets like 'AMAhaters' and such. The Congressional Act that is the subject of this thread seems to me a win-win for ALCON. It protects us from regulation even the regulator didn't want. Why isn't everybody happy? Makes me question if there is a great abyss between what some folks wanted and what they said they wanted. I suspect the legislators responsible for it might have shared my skepticism and wisely wrote in some protections on their own inititive......they aren't stupid people.

llindsey1965

My Feedback: (-1)

I believe this was a win win situation , and we won a large hurdle  now lets go fly  godspeed

KidEpoxy

Lindsey,
win-win?

Riddle me this Lindsman:
When a FPV flyer walks alone onto his back40,
looks around to make sure there are no planes around,
puts on his goggles,
takes of from 'cockpit view', flys around by FPV 'cockpit view', and lands by 'cockpit view',
with them FPV goggles covering his face the whole time
... is that legal under this bill?



oh, I got another quetsion for ya regarding your
is that a muncie mandate outside of your control,
or your club rule that you can change locally if your club wanted to allow non-AMA folks to fly for $5Day
(btw, I know the answer.. I am wondering if YOU do)

KidEpoxy

RTK
you seemed to have not answered the last time I asked you,
you probably just didnt see the questions so I'll ask again



RTK, Do you agree

1) AMA should NEVER try to change a permissive government definition into a Less Permissive definition? Y/N

2) The most likely result of AMA messing with the feds over that permissive definition will be a less permissive definition? Y/N

KidEpoxy

Pilot
two things-

1) 'Liaison' does not mean 'play ball', or 'seek acceptance', 'do as you are told', or 'surrender to'. Having a cbo liaison officer be the one to tell the FAA to stuff it on behalf of the org at every meeting with the FAA can meet the congressional definition nicely.

2) The bill eliminates the negotiating with FAA. Sure they can ask us to consider stuff, but we can just say "No thankyou. NEXT!". Thats not a negotiation, thats FAA begging with no position to hurt us... recall how the FAA's boss said they may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model.... no matter how upset they get over them not being able to tell us what to do


in another thread Silent made this observation-

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Max Trescott on General Aviation

<hr style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 0pt; margin: 0pt;"/>

Sharing Airspace with Drones

Posted: 09 Feb 2012 01:39 PM PST

The 145-page FAA reauthorization bill just passed by the House and the Senate contains dozens of directives from Congress to the FAA. One of them, which forces the FAA to speed up the introduction of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System, may inevitably lead to more mid-air collisions. To date, UASs have been authorized solely along the Mexican border and within restricted airspace. In the near future, pilots may be sharing all airspace with these unmanned aircraft.

Small, low altitude UASs will be here very soon. Within 90 days of signing the bill, the FAA will be required to “enter into agreements with appropriate government agencies to simplify the process for issuing certificates of waiver or authorization with respect to applications seeking authorization to operate public unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace system.” Under this provision, any government agency can apply to operate an unmanned aircraft weighing 4.4 pounds or less, in daylight conditions, less than 400 feet AGL as long as they remain within Class G airspace and at least 5 statute miles from any airport, heliport, seaplane base, spaceport, or other location with aviation activities.

Rules for larger UASs, weighing up to 55 pounds, must be published within 27 months. As part of that process, within 270 days the FAA needs to “develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system.” Part of that plan requires that the FAA “ensure that any civil unmanned aircraft system includes a sense and avoid capability” and establish standards for pilots and operators of UASs.

 At least one UAS has already had a mid-air collision. In August 2011, over the skies of Afghanistan, a 450-pound UAS hit a C130 cargo plane, damaging the plane and forcing an emergency landing. The drone was destroyed. 

Near mid-air collisions are also occurring. In August 2004, a dramatic series of images from a German-built Luna UAS documents its own near miss with an Airbus A300B4 airliner with more than 100 passengers on board. The two aircraft missed each other by less than 50 feet. The UAS crashed after encountering the airliner’s wake turbulence.

The reauthorization bill’s requirement for UASs to have a “sense and avoid capability” will help, but is unlikely to avoid all collisions. Research in the last decade has produced a variety of systems that equip UASs with some combination of video cameras, transponders, radar and even microphones to detect nearby aircraft. 

Many current UASs flying over Iraq and Afghanistan meet ASTM standard F2411 – 07, which requires unmanned aircraft to detect other aircraft within plus or minus 115 degrees of its heading and within an elevation of plus or minus 15 degrees. After detecting an aircraft, the standard requires a UAS to avoid a collision by at least 500 feet. For flying in the National Airspace System, the FAA could required UASs to have 360 degree surveillance to detect faster aircraft overtaking from behind, something not required under ASTM F2411 – 07.

Technology will help, but eliminating all accidents and mid-air collisions between aircraft and UASs will be impossible. Already the NTSB database documents at least seven UAS accidents in the United States. In the future, pilots will need to use all of their resources to avoid an increasing number of unmanned aircraft in the skies.

TimJ

cj_rumley

Hey Kid,

Do you recall the analogy pondering what will the dog do if he catches the car?
It is telling about the depth of planning that went into this venture when the drafters of the piece of legislation have to ask those that enacted it what they meant by doing so.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Sounds like a typical AMA club to me.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Sounds like a typical AMA club to me.

KidEpoxy

Tim,
what are you trying to communicate with that post,
other than just propagating the bickering and hateful posts
that folks claim not to like about rcu?

You quote in folks fibbing about me saying AMA is evil,
you quote in folks calling my discussion of whats going on a rant
you quote in folks slinging the basher/hater namecalling
... and you dont add a single word of your own regarding the subject of the thread

Hey, I too have a list of derogatives I would love to sling at you guys,
but I dont, do I... what namecalling have I done to you, or RTK or Lindsey?
I dont insult you yet in turn you insult me and make personal hate posts rather than discuss the subject.

What earned me all this hate from you guys?
Is it because I am trying to look out for the entire hobby, not just be AMA selfserving?


. . . .


Tim,
hows about you(you are a AVP right?) answer the simple quetsions I posted,
so we can get an ama seatholders view-

TIM,
y/n AMA should NEVER try to change a permissive government definition into a Less Permissive definition?
y/n Is it legal under this bill to Look&Launch a 100% Gogglesdown FPV flight all alone on ones back40 pasture?

please answer with a single letter Y or N,
(that means Dont rewrite the question to use an answer you want to give but dont fit the question as written)

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

The AMA MUST act as liason with government agencies as an advocate for its members.

If the AMA refuses to do so then the AMA does not meet the definition of a CBO.

When I used the term, "play ball", I meant the AMA MUST meet with the FAA. They cannot refuse to meet with the FAA.

If you think that meeting with the FAA is not required by the new legislation, then we disagree.

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

...

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

I think you guys are mising the point . You should let the AMA negotiate and interact with the FAA on your behalf. Over the years I have had my fair share of"meetings" with the fAA and I can tell youthat I was very glad to have union help dealing with the feds. remember when the rule was 8 hours form bottle to throttle, well they don't. My point is that you are stronger as a group than as 100,000 individuals all screming for FPV or some other interst.So give the AMA a brake !! And give the AMA support. Don't sweet the small stuff. They will get to it eventually. So stik together and be strong or split up and geted picked of one bye one.

Flyfast1

My Feedback: (1)

It would be nice if AMA relaxed the rules a bit for fpv. I am not exactly sure what would be best, but flying fpv on a buddy box really takes a lot of the fun out of it.

-Ed B.

KidEpoxy

United,
this isnt about 'who' deals with the FAA when the FAA mandates they be dealt with,
its about us modeling folks (like YOU) accepting that CONGRESS just made it so we modelers dont have to deal with the FAA at all.

We no longer need representation interacting with the FAA to protect us in any upcoming FAA regulations,
because CONGRESS just gave us a blanket protection from FAA.

What the heck are you talking about?
We dont need 1 guy or 300million guys screaming at the FAA to get the FAA to allow our (or any) CBO to do something.
CONGRESS just said FAA cannot tell us CBOs what to do / not-do.
What screaming are you talking about?
Certainly not a CBO that wants anything,
cause now CBOs take their orders from Congress not the FAA- basicly FAA has been ordered by congress to sit down and shut up regarding CBOs.

We no longert need 140000 voices to beg FAA for permissions,
we CBOs no longer need FAAs permission cause CONGRESS gave us permission and told FAA not to mess with us.
We didnt use the 140k Voices to get congressional action,
we have had tons of voices for years.
What we did was to START using an actual lobbyist for the first time,
and instantly presto! We got congress to grant us carte blanc protection from FAA


perfect example
If folks believe the FAA can just refuse congress' definition of what is a Model Aircarft,
and instead type up their own FAA ModelAircraft Definition that includes the very thing congress made forbidden,
because a guy representing 140k folks asked the FAA to ignore what congress put into a law,
I really cant discuss things with those folks cause they are well beyond being rational about how laws work.

We dont need to ask the FAA to decide what congress meant.
We start enjoy the freedoms that congress gave us,
and SUE THE FAA if they try to infringe on our newfound freedom.
If you want someone to judicate a law, you embrace not the Executive branch, not the legislative branch, but the Judicial branch.

heh, suit asking for $1000 a person is how many millions the FAA will be sued for when 140k members are named

the LAW is on our side, no longer on the FAA's
Stop acting like we are still serfs.

KidEpoxy

RTK

Yes, FAA lost control of what defines a CBO,
and they lost control over what defines a ModelAircraft,
and they lost control over ruling / regulating CBOs,
and they lost control of ModelAircraft flown with CBO programming

What do you mean you have not seen anything that has changed,
considering we are talking in the future tense about what WILL happen I should hope you havent seen it yet.
I guess you are of the mind as to just wait till its too late and freedom is lost, and then admit it happened.
But some of us would like to recognize that poking the sleeping hornets nest has a predictable outcome.
If the congress grants you total freedom,
any change in that amount will have to be less.

It is BAD if 'somehow' the cbo definition
suddenly gets wording like 'approved cbo standards' showing up in it to ... ahem.. better define.. the wording that dont have the government deciding who can and who cant.... I like it how ALL MODELERS CAN so lets not mess that up to exclude a bunch of us modelers from CBOing


Right now, it is obvious to everyone everywhere that AMA has had safety rules, guidelines, and policies,
and that they are VERY extensive.
We CLEARLY meet the 'extensive' rules part of the definition, why would we need it better defined?
There is no bar to reach,
setting a bar will just exclude those under the bar
that used to be included before the bar was added.
No Bar, plenty of startup CBOs.
Add Bar, bar can stop some of them.
Who is trying to get bars defined into permissive AnythingGoesForCBOs government policy

50+AirYears

This isn't the first time the AMA has gone to Government agencies for the betterment of model aviation (AKA Lobbied?), and it will probably not be the last.
In the late 40s, they got the FCC to allow model aircraft operation on the then new 27.255 MHz (Then 27.255 MC) "License Free) band. AKA Citizens' Band. Prior to that, what some people seem to consider intnterference, to fly an RC plane, one needed to pass the FCC Amatuer Technicians test, which included both morse code sending and recieving, and a general knowledge of electronics, radio operation, and FCC rules and regulations. There was little availability, and a flier often had to build, or even design and build his own. I believe they even got spots in the 220 MHz and 465 MHz bands.
In the early 1950s, they got the FCC to open up 5 new frequencies in the 27 MHz band, after Superhetrodyne radios became availble, allowing more than one flier to be airborn at the same time in an area.
They were instrumental in getting the early frequencies in the current 72 MHz band. I think they also contributed to getting the frequencies in the 75 MHz band for surface models, which helps to keep the local interference down.
The got the frequencies in the 72 and 75 bands expanded in number, and also put in a lot of work to keep commercial users from getting on the bands. I remember during the late 1980s-early 90s several makers of remote control heavy equipment actually advertising theier 5 or 10 WATT, not milliwat, radios on our frequencies. Work by the AMA, and also the fairly new and small Sport Flyers of America fought this off. At least one local company actually changed the frequency of his equipment even before the FCC backed off.
Now this latest episode, in which the FAA tried to start exerting control over model aviation.
Over the last 50 or so years, I seem to recall at least 4 groups trying to supplant the AMA. All died out. None got enough members to be self sustaining. In fact, I remember talking to a flyer from California about why Don Dewey's offer to provide space in RCM didn't get accepted. Apparently, he wanted the AMA to concentrate entirely on RC, and drop support for CL and FF. AMA refused to do that, as thier charter is for all aspects of model aviation. This airman said Dewey actually approached the head of WAM (Western Association of Modelers), and was rebuffed over the issue.
We don't need an organisation with 140,000 members talking to the FAA (and FCC, and whoever else wants to try to control us)? I couldn't disagree any more stromgly. Just think, if a year or two ago, the NAR (National Association of Rocketry) won against a Federal agency that wanted to make the shipping of hobby related model rocket motors basically impossible. This organisation of only around 5000 fought the law and the organisation won. Just think how much stronger we are with an organisation like the AMA, and 140k members? And where would people who like firearms be without the NRA?
Instead of knocking and putting down the AMA, we should be giving them a rousing "Thank You!", and a hearty :Job Well Done!"!!!

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I think the Kid is making the simply point that we just need to understand when we have "won our case" and not just keep on "making our case”...it only gets worse from here/there... As it stands now, recreational model aviation is immanently protected... Don’t jack with it anymore...dangit. First rule of negotiating; recognizing when you have won!

KidEpoxy

LCS
Right on.
Well, you should have reminded folks that the 'we' that have won
is the ENTIRE HOBBY*, all modelers and all cbos & upcoming cbos... not just AMA.

It will take a lot to hurt AMA's situation,
but it could be real easy to hurt/kill other cbos that want to start up.




*except the Maynard Hill ilk of course

804

My Feedback: (1)

_______
So, Kid, what happened to all this crap you said to me in the other thread, when I said we didn't need any FAA regulation?

KidEpoxy

Wha'chu talkin bout 8?

Other thread???? what other thread??
Are you just cross thread griping?

You talk about some comment you made in another thread,
but fail to quote in your comment, link it, or even mention what thread you are talking about.

I'm not gonna go searching for your mystery thread
as to put the CONTEXT back into my posts.
You wanna gripe about whats going on in other threads, make some sense out it.



however
I will point out that the quote of me you did post
pretty much shows me saying I dont think it would be great at all to have that as federal regulation.
Good job, you found a quote of me saying I dont like federal regulation of the hobby.

You may also note that the quote of me was talking about how we can get hurt even by just making a DEFINITION,
which is what I have been saying a few pages here-
We got a permissive definition from congress,
dont mess with it cause as I said in that quote, defining us can hurt us (the hobby)


Great work 804,
you proved that I dont want the government intruding in the hobby
and that I know we can get hurt by overzealous definition of us

I had no idea you were a closet KidEpoxy cheerleader,
but thanks for the support

KidEpoxy

ok, I found [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10933637]the post[/link] 804 is trying to play Soundbite Gatcha with.
I dont need to come up with a defense of what was in the soundbite,
cause when you read the whole post it becomes clear as to what I was saying


as I have been saying in this thread-
Defining what we are not, hurts us.
More defining of what we are not, hurts us more