What difference does that make? Not seein' bad press on a Hot shot .45 Tunnel hull or a Swamp buggy lately.

bad press??? not about whatever press... just about aviation...particularly model aviation...seems quads and other forms of model aviation FPV have more in common with what we do than little boats and cars...but I guess you and the other witch hunters here would just disagree...

Don't want to be a witch? Don't act like one. Better get with your peers and influence them to change their ways, otherwise the whole lot will come down.

Oh, it was opinion you were sharing? My bad, most of the comments you were making sounded factual, like you had some data to back up what you were claiming. At least it's clear now. lol...why would anyone try to change your opinion? Have you seen that ever happen here, on any issue? Ha!

Yes, given your prior comments and opinions it sounded like you've been involved in the hobby for at least 30 years, I was guessing 40. I shared some info on the AMA as it didn't really appear you fully grasped what they are all about, the rocketry comments as an example. Speaking of examples, can you show me an example where the AMA is promoting FPV flying?

Yes, the sky is falling argument warning. Always trotted out when all else fails. In your 30 years of competitive modeling certainly you've seen change come to this hobby, is this the first time you've ever heard someone say "oh, this new fangled (....) will be the ruination of this hobby"? You're still flying right?

Actually it is a sunday flyer type of relationship. Has been a part of modeling for a couple of decades or more. No problems till they were mass produced. The AMA needs to protect those modelers who wish to use FPV. Actually they need to start allowing them in competition.

Porcia, preserving our rights to fly as they now stand, [with no further restrictions] TRUMPS that AMA "Mission Statement" you posted earlier.
When that Mission Statement was written, "embracing" all existing forms of model flight seemed like a "No Brainer".
We have reached a fork in the road where DITCHING drone style flight seems like a No Brainer to those of us who wish to avoid further regulation that is the result of drone style flight.

Being that I have basically said the same thing over and over again, and a certain few cannot seem to grasp the point, and never will, I consider this a waste of time at this point.

Just not sure what you mean when you use the term 'drone style flight'....but if its what I think it is you mean, the AMA doesn't support that...at least as of right now they don't.

LCS, I realize that, but in the eyes of the law makers and the public there is no such thing as being just "slightly involved", "remotely involved", or "kinda - sorta - in a round about way involved".
Realistically, I expect to see this sport just as regulated and licensed as hunting, fishing, boating, etc. someday. I'll blame it on what we're talking about right now.
When that day arrives, those of us who can still remember what it was like to fly with just a $58 card will continue to debate whether or not this could have been avoided with a better angle of attack.

P.S. I can't wait to see the safety gear, face shields in the pits and helmets that we are going to be required to wear...lol.

the safety gear requirement will likely be an AMA thing...if it happens.

Another possible outcome to all of this, that hasn't been discussed, is that once the FAA fully understands the gravity of the situation, they will opt to tighten the traffic restraints of man carrying flights...possibly limiting them to something above 2000 ft AGL with certain exceptions... and put most other flight authority back into the property owners' right as with any other immediate use... but to ever see something like that happen will take a mindset change that doesn't seem to exist from most people we hear from...and the quite ones never count...sad...

Well who do you think is trying to preserve our right to fly NOW...and in the FUTURE? I believe that's the the AMA, unless I'm missing some other group that's out there. Banning or "ditching" a technology or style of flying is meaningless, a waste of time, and reactionary. Those who think that no regulation is the best way to go are living in an alternate reality, and don't appear to have come to grips with a changing world.

And yet you keep repeating over and over, almost as if you're trying to change someone's mind? Where did I hear that before?

You seem to be upset that the "certain few" won't agree with you, that's a shame. I don't look at discussing different view points with people and trying to understand them as a waste of time. YMMV

No lines,no waiting.....ever been to a pylon event, or combat?

They do that now. At 18,000 feet you have to be IFR rated and file an IFR flight plan. They won't lower it as AOPA and others will raise cain. No pun intended Hoss Fly.

The law says there will be no regulation of model airplanes! Now you want them to regulate model airplanes after that battle was won?

Shhhh!! Don't give them any ideas. Can you imagine a UAV ban within 5 mile radius of every single McDonalds?!

That's only when flying under thee rules of a community based origination i.e. AMA. The AMA says "No Flying over People. and if I'm not mistaken #336 does not limit the FAA administrator from making rules when the rules if the CBO (AMA) are not followed LOOK It Up PLZ

Consider this:

Commercial UAS is/will be a multi billion dollar industry with many positive uses for militiry, government, LEO, agriculture, and many many more.
It will not go away.
Recreational UAS is at best a low 8 figure worldwide and at best a mid 7 figure business in the US
Having said that I would speculate that Horizon, Great Planes and other US distributors are making the largest share of their revenue from FPV/UAS
Without it would these companies be able to develop new products and stay in business?
FPV/UAS is at this time IMHO funding the model aviation industry
Any US FAA ban on FPV/UAS will not effect the rest f the world which will progress in technology AT OUR RISK

You nay sayers are just pis***g in the wind

Lastly when dis it become "American" to throw other model aviation enthusiasts under the bus to protect our toys? Very sad.

Flying under the rules of the AMA is not the same as under regulation. AFAIK there is no fine for breaking an AMA rule. And no regulation means just that, they cannot make regulations for model airplanes. The only restriction is endangering the NAS. Not Mickey Mouse.

Can't disagree but, unfortunately the FAA has the authority and power to protect Mickie and Minnie anyway.

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Flying under the rules of the AMA is not the same as under regulation. AFAIK there is no fine for breaking an AMA rule. And no regulation means just that, they cannot make regulations for model airplanes. The only restriction is endangering the NAS. Not Mickey Mouse.


JONSHE: U are absolutely correct.
The government (FAA, IRS, ect) do as they please be damned the rules congress or the constitution ...

HD, you have grievously misinterpreted my remarks. The FAA and all other government agencies only enforce the laws of congress. Any time they stray, which happens occasionally (bureaucrats are only human) they catch heck from congress and the public. One of the reasons that the interpretive rule is so narrowly phrased is because the FAA is making every effort to interpret the letter of the law exactly.

The AMA and other are suing the FAA, so they are catching more than heck.

Interpreting a law that says airport operators have to be notified as allowing airport operators who have been notified to shut down modeling doesn't strike me as an "effort to interpret the letter of the law exactly."

As for the FAA "catch[ing] heck from Congress" when it misinterprets the law, could you give us some examples? Or even one example? I won't hold my breath.

You don't recall the IRS screw up over how to determine the tax exemption of PACs? Congress, at least the Republicans, went nutz.