islandflyer

That is correct.
See the voting record here: http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutam...ecminutes.aspx
Districts III, V, VII, VIII, X and XI voted against, I, II, IV, VI, IX and XII voted in favor, and the tie breaker was the current president

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I think it would be interesting to see the ultimate reason each of those parties voted for or against the funding. Was it done for truly personal reasons, or did they listen to everyone in their district and determine what they wanted. Some of those seats are coming up for elections shortly, wonder if they will each be asked their position on this issue.

islandflyer

Asked by whom, and how?
In the several hundreds of AMA member I have had a chance to discuss this subject with in the past couple of years, none was informed, let alone consulted on the upcoming decision that was about to take place through that vote.
I personally spoke with three VP's all of whom voted against, all for the same reasons that most of us are opposed: the threat it represents to our hobby as long the the AMA lumps us all together, thereby inviting the law makers to do the same.

I am aware of one who voted in favor, who has direct financial interests in a drone related endeavor.

That is 1/3 of the VP's, and maybe others here have more information.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Me, just now.

Just curious in general. Part of me thinks this might have been something to communicate out to the folks in their districts ahead of time, but at some point our leaders should be left to make decisions they collectively feel are in the best interests of the hobby...that's why they are elected. Not every decision will be perfect, or liked by everyone. But I did go back to those meeting notes and two things in particular stood out. The first:

• Paid membership for this year up 2.2%; overall new membership up 5%.
• A large amount of new members are coming from social media (FB and Google Ads), as well as print media (Model Aviation and other magazines).

Think that 2.2% uptick was from "traditional" modelers, whatever that means? I'm thinking used here, that's scratch builders who fly gas/nitro planes. It's a generalization i know, that seems to be what people have alluded to. Or could the jump be attributed to quads/MR pilots. Paired up with the second line, I'm going to say it's from new folks to the hobby, and the advent of cheaper more reliable airplane,and MR account for some of that.

The other piece:

• Should back off on this for a while to see how things go with the FAA. Don’t see a gain for AMA; this is a highly volatile subject. AMA can only educate the bad actors if they want to be educated. Must worry about core members, the hobbyist.
• AMA should move ahead, taking into consideration what the FAA does and adapt to it.
• It is important to distinguish ourselves and what we are, our core value of safety and responsibility. It is important to recognize the technology, we can’t get away from that
• This program is about education and training the responsible portion of this community.
• If we pull away from this program AMA will still get blamed when bad things happen; it’s all about education which is what we are doing.
• We are so far behind the window of opportunity; the only choice people who want to fly responsibly and safely have without the program, would be to wait two years for the small UAS rule to come out.
• There are threats to AMA out there, and those organizations are looking to step into this ‘gray area’ opportunity which is somewhere between the true recreational modeler and the other end of the scale (that AMA is not interested in) the true commercial operator. Someone is going to fill that gray area.
• Irresponsible people who join our program will still operate irresponsibly; it will have a bad impact on AMA.
• We are not going to avoid the problems by avoiding the ever-evolving technology. AMA should be on the leading edge creating a standard for this rather than on the trailing edge reacting to it
• If we don’t do this someone else will. There is a need and a market from the legitimate community of SUAS to have a program. We can choose to be a decision maker there and be in control, guide it and form it the way we want or we can sit back and let someone else do it.
• AMA has asked the community what they want/need and we have the demographics from the MCA report. Don’t look at this as commercial operation because it is not. There is a small element that is light commercial; but we are talking purposeful use and personal use which is the larger component of the entire program. Those are the people that want to help their communities with such things as firefighting and precision Ag.

Emphasis added by me. Some great thoughts there that made perfect sense. Ultimately it was a 7 to 6 vote. Sounds like a thoughtful discussion took place, not an easy decision to be made.

Veltro

My Feedback: (1)

I think Governor Brown will definitely sign the drone bill regarding firefighting aircraft, and the one about flying over schools, but I’m not convinced he will sign this one. I can see him taking the position that we should wait and see what the FAA does with their guidelines first.

Jerry Brown was definitely “Governor Moonbeam” the first time around, but this time he has taken a “do what’s right” attitude. He hasn’t cared who he has stepped on. If he thinks it’s a bad idea, he’ll say no/veto it.

One thing to watch about the firefighting aircraft bill is that the legislator clearly said in his press release that they heavily favor jamming our frequencies. To me, that’s the logical solution to the problem, but is horrible for us. Once the cat is out of the bag, the airports will jump in. Why risk drone strikes again and again when you can just jam the frequency. I believe this legislator is working closely with Cal Fire (the guys with the OV-10 Broncos) so they are serious about the jamming. And, of course, once the common person finds out how simple it is, there will be (illegal) jammers on the market. To be continued next year …

(I contacted AMA and said we need to seek separate frequencies for hobby drones to head this off. They said they would keep it in mind).

By the way, I most definitely sent in a letter requesting that Governor Brown veto SB 142. He has staff that really does read and tally these letters.

Veltro

My Feedback: (1)

If you really want to give yourself nightmares, you should read the committee analysis when SB 142 was first introduced. It lays out all the legal arguments as to why the property owner controls the airspace below 500 feet and not the FAA, why they can sue you for passing through "their" airspace, why public administrators of public land can close the airspace over that land, too, if they choose to (a nod to our lovely environmentalists), …

Here’s the link: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...201520160SB142 Select the 4/6/15 Senate Judiciary Bill Analysis

The author of this bill, Hanna-Beth Jackson was a darn good attorney before she became a legislator. Her husband was also an excellent attorney. He was “the” go-to guy if you got yourself in legal trouble. He later became a judge in Santa Barbara. I may not like it, but the arguments are well laid out for anyone suing you, should this bill be signed by the Governor.

The thing I find really upsetting is that this offense is already clearly codified in Section 1708.8 of the Civil Code:

1708.8.
(a) A person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when the defendant knowingly enters onto the land or into the airspace of another person without permission or otherwise committed a trespass in order to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity and the invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.

SB 142 takes the extreme approach that by banning everything operated in the air by radio control below 350 feet, you don't have to worry about whether or not you are being filmed. It is a perfect example of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

[email protected]

My Feedback: (1)

shoot the drones that come in to your yard take them to the desert and shoot them all to heck to u know what with the law

rgburrill

Yay. Get these idiots back to controlled flying fields where they belong!

jmiles1941

if it flys and is rc it falls under the guidelines of AMA the CBA (community based orginazition) you need to fly at a sanctioned field like we do our aircraft ,The FAA stated all rc aircraft must be under the control of CBA , now get your butts to a sanctioned AMA field and quit acting stupid flying at schools, shopping centers, ball parks , parks and every where else you are not suppose to fly . Oh and join AMA and quit whinning about that little cost for AMA it is for you and the hobby and sport protection , I wouldn't dare fly my 42% anywhere but a AMA field!!!!!

Granpooba

My Feedback: (5)

Well you can always sell off everything flyable and get into RC cars or boats.

harlanb

My Feedback: (1)

This is a lame duck law.
It will be almost impossible to prove if a rc aircraft flew over someones property below 350ft. Even if they get video, it will most likely be a video of a rc aircraft in the sky, and there will be no way to determine its altitude or location. As mentioned before, there are already laws to cover this issue.
It irritates me that instead of enforcing the laws we already have, we have to make up new redundant laws created by over reacting extremists.

tp777fo

My Feedback: (28)

It will be so nice when the big one hits and CA falls off into the Pacific. Hope it is during a big east coast jet rally and all the guys are there.

Silent-AV8R

Bad news, contrary to the information you may have gotten from movies and TV, California will not "fall into the ocean". Every earthquake on the San Andreas just slips along bringing LA and San Francisco closer together. In just another 12 million years, give or take, they'll be suburbs of each other!!

South Carolina will be well under the ocean long before then, so rest easy, you won't have to worry about California any longer!!

jelge

This makes as much sense as blaming the entire RC community for the acts of the few morons out there. I live in a remote area and there aren't enough RC modelers here to even come close to putting together a club let alone a sanctioned field yet, according to you, I shouldn't be allowed to participate in the hobby.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Good point and observation. This is a classic case of how a one size fits all approach to almost any situation isn't always the best situation. Gray areas, subtleties, and nuances can't be dealt with. There are tons of people who don't belong to structured clubs that enjoy the hobby, and fly responsibly. Being a club member or AMA member isn't required to have fun, and be safe.

warningshot

!. What is a CBA?
2. Why should everyone have to go to AMA HQ just to fly as you want?

Silent-AV8R

Just a couple of points.

First, there is no such thing as an "AMA Sanctioned FIled." Simply does not exist. AMA Charters Clubs, Sanctions contest, but it in no way approves, sanctions, or in any other manner approve a club flying site. They will provide the club with insurance for the owner of their flying site at the request of the club, but AMA does not inspect or require anything with regard to the actual flying site in order to issue insurance.

I'm making this point because it is important to understand what AMA actually does with respect to flying sites.

Second it is a Community Based Organization C-B-O, not C-B-A

Last, there is nothing in the AMA Safety Code that requires a member to fly at a club flying site. All AMA requires is that their members operate in accordance with the current AMA Safety Code.

Having said all that, I agree that people need to be very aware of where they intend to fly and to make certain that flying there does not violate the Safety Code or plain common sense.

Silent-AV8R

I do try to be accurate when I post something. Thanks for providing the back up to my factual statement

islandflyer

I know you do: just providing the link for anyone not yet aware of the circumstances that lead to the current situation.

mike31

My Feedback: (67)

It's the 2 legged drones that need governing!

rgburrill

The FAA finally published their updated guidance. Advisory Cirular (AC) 91-57A was published last week.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

http://jrupprechtlaw.com/advisory-ci...with-ac-91-57a

That is a great side by side comparison between the original and revised advisory (34 years old). Not perfectly clear on each and every point, some gray area that is in need of clarification which will hopefully come before waiting another 34 years. Overall, nothing earth shattering or damaging to the hobby.

ramboamt

My Feedback: (36)

Or RC Submarines....

Silent-AV8R

We won this round!! Brown vetoed the bill. But trust me, it ain't over, she'll be back!!

http://gov.ca.gov/docs/SB_142_Veto_Message.pdf

sideshow

My Feedback: (11)

Moonbeam comes through!