Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

Are you ready to register your aircraft?

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

Are you ready to register your aircraft?

Old 10-18-2015, 03:02 PM
  #76  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ltc View Post
The AMA has thrown almost 80 years of member support and history under the bus, just so they could embrace the drone market. It was driven by dollars, period.

I don't see that a bit, IMO

Regarding registration, I would have no problem paying a fee to a government agency in exchange for a "tail number" in exchange for being left alone to fly fixed wing, line of sight, traditional RC aircraft.
Well the good news is you won't need to pay anything, nor will you plane have a tail number. Would you still be o/k with this if you had 10, or 20 planes...ie paying for a number on each? Your fixed wing line of sight "traditional" RC isn't affected now, nor will it be to any degree down the road.
Old 10-18-2015, 03:08 PM
  #77  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon View Post
That document was published by the AMA.

My question was asking whether the FAA has officially designated the AMA as CBO?

The FAA does reference a CBO in AC 91-57A, but does not specifically name the AMA.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...mentID/1028086

Nor will they in a document like that.
Old 10-18-2015, 03:18 PM
  #78  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon View Post
That document was published by the AMA. My question was asking whether the FAA has officially designated the AMA as CBO? The FAA does reference a CBO in AC 91-57A, but does not specifically name the AMA.
While the FAA did not declare AMA a CBO, it would appear they view them as one for they cite AMA as an example of a CBO in footnote 7 at the bottom of page 12: "[C]ommunity based organizations, for example, would include groups such as the Academy of ModelAeronautics and others that meet the statutory definition"

What's even more interesting, is look at the language used by the AMA...they call themselves "the" CBO...as if they want to be the only one. Clearly FAA doesn't think there's just one, as they use "groups" (plural)...and refer to "others that meet the statutory definition." So FAA is leaving door wide open for competitors to AMA.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_..._spec_rule.pdf
Old 10-18-2015, 03:29 PM
  #79  
Skinny Bob
My Feedback: (12)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Park Falls, WI
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JimmyZep View Post
No! I will not be registering my planes, if that ever comes about.

Jimmy
Nor will I !!!
Bob
Old 10-18-2015, 03:29 PM
  #80  
NorfolkSouthern
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Granpooba View Post
" Personally " speaking, I would have to say more at risk. But also I have to say and speaking from experience with the FAA, who the hell is going to police the hobby They can not even do the job that is assigned to them now !

Also, I really wish somebody would explain to me how what started out as QUAD COPTERS, has now spilled over to every RC model aircraft being DRONE labeled.

Quite a number of years ago I considered applying for a position that was being offered by our Federal Government / Military. They were looking for real life civilian pilots with radio controlled aircraft experience. The positions being offered was to fly " DRONES " for the military.
The DRONES that you would be flying were radio controlled AIRPLANES, not QUAD COPTERS!

So just how in the hell did this DRONE label spill over onto every type of radio controlled aircraft.
Much of that started a number of years ago before quads were even invented, when someone put a camera inside a 1/4 scale Cub, with a video down link. Then, flew the model plane up to 20,000 feet in altitude, and published several videos, which also described the altitude. That website was later taken down after some protests from the modeling community and the FAA.

I can only assume that I am getting stupid In my old age as this is really starting to confuse me. Perhaps I will go back to building and running radio controlled cars and boats. At least I know what their label means.
Your question is quite valid, and an intelligent one to ask. I am sure there are many other model plane hobbyists who are feeling the same way. Some will register if required to, and expect club members and such to do the same. Then there are those with a "cold dead hands" philosophy. Fixed wing, quad, heli, ducted fan, jet, what ever. If it's RC, it's a drone. We will have to wait and see what comes up in the coming weeks.

Last edited by NorfolkSouthern; 10-18-2015 at 03:32 PM.
Old 10-18-2015, 05:05 PM
  #81  
jmiles1941
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rcmiket View Post
Didn't we (the AMA) spend some big bucks to prevent this?

Mike
it is only for drones , they have broken so many rules it is lucky they don't ban them , !!!!!!
Old 10-18-2015, 05:14 PM
  #82  
Prop_Washer2
My Feedback: (26)
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by oneaew@msn.com View Post
everything i buy is used guns planes cars women screw all our laws>>
I agree 100%... The government can kiss my used azz.....!!! It ain't the land of the "Free" No more... what a joke we are becoming...
Old 10-18-2015, 06:12 PM
  #83  
804
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan, IN
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
We have legislatures all over the country writing and passing or attempting to pass laws regulating "drones" and tomorrow the DOT will be making an announcement about something that may well affect our hobby.

Ask yourself this? "Since AMA embraced what the public and lawmakers call 'drones' (quads) and FPV, is our hobby generally more at risk of regulation or less at risk?"
I think it is time for franklin_m, combatpigg, or astrofog (since all three subscribe to the idea that,
had AMA publicly shunned drones, our hobby would be "left alone"), to
put up or shut up.
What proof, or evidence, do any of you have to make that connection?
I know one or all of you will say it is obvious, but that ain't gonna cut it.
Let' see the smoking gun, not the smoke and mirrors.
Old 10-18-2015, 06:24 PM
  #84  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 1,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 804 View Post
I think it is time for franklin_m, combatpigg, or astrofog (since all three subscribe to the idea that,
had AMA publicly shunned drones, our hobby would be "left alone"), to
put up or shut up.
What proof, or evidence, do any of you have to make that connection?
I know one or all of you will say it is obvious, but that ain't gonna cut it.
Let' see the smoking gun, not the smoke and mirrors.
Evidence and proof of a scenario that never took place?

Not possible. Sorry.

Regards,

Astro
Old 10-18-2015, 07:35 PM
  #85  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 804 View Post
I think it is time for franklin_m, combatpigg, or astrofog (since all three subscribe to the idea that,
had AMA publicly shunned drones, our hobby would be "left alone"), to
put up or shut up.

What proof, or evidence, do any of you have to make that connection?
What? That there are possible state and location actions in work to regulate drones? Heck, AMA admits that on their website. As for other connections, I merely asked a question. Do people feel better about the future of the hobby since AMA chose to allow FPV and embraced drones or do they feel about it's future? Simple question, no "proof" required.

My point is that by not saying "drones" are not part of our "programming", the AMA linked forever hobby flying with drone flying in the mind of the public, legislators, and/or the media. Subtle distinctions are lost on these groups, as evidenced by the sensationalized reporting. I think it would have been a much stronger public position had AMA not embraced drones, as there would be a clear bright line to the public, legislators, and the media.


Oh, and for proof of pending legislation, here's just one place to look: http://uavs.insct.org/
Old 10-18-2015, 07:58 PM
  #86  
combatpigg
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
combatpigg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: arlington, WA
Posts: 19,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83 View Post
Well you won't need to..just more alarmist talk. Say, you're guns aren't registered?
LOL...Get a load of ADOLPH...!!! Vondering if ze gentlezmanz gunz are registered...?
Old 10-18-2015, 08:05 PM
  #87  
combatpigg
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
combatpigg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: arlington, WA
Posts: 19,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 804 View Post
I think it is time for franklin_m, combatpigg, or astrofog (since all three subscribe to the idea that,
had AMA publicly shunned drones, our hobby would be "left alone"), to
put up or shut up.
What proof, or evidence, do any of you have to make that connection?
I know one or all of you will say it is obvious, but that ain't gonna cut it.
Let' see the smoking gun, not the smoke and mirrors.
804...do you believe in "Anti Matter" and "Alternate Universes"...?
This is where you can find irrefutable proof about things that have never taken their course in our reality.
Otherwise, you will need to exercise some degree of common sense to believe in what I do.
Since you were an outspoken supporter of the PPP, let that speak for itself your powers of reason, forward thinking and judgement.
Old 10-18-2015, 08:29 PM
  #88  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mr_matt View Post
Good thing I fly a traditional RC model and not a drone.
To the FAA our models are drones.
Old 10-18-2015, 08:36 PM
  #89  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
And what exactly has this expenditure produced? A victory in court? No.
I thought it was just this year that the suit was made. Was it thrown out? It may take months maybe a year for federal cases to be heard.
Old 10-18-2015, 08:51 PM
  #90  
combatpigg
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
combatpigg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: arlington, WA
Posts: 19,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
To the FAA our models are drones.
Nope, I refuse to believe they are that stupid or immune to public ridicule. Not the folks who they ultimately answer to, at least.
Nobody with a room temperature IQ and any self respect could confuse what I fly with a drone.
You can make a drone out of a large Party Balloon or a discarded cardboard box, but that does not make balloons and common household garbage, DRONES.
Old 10-19-2015, 03:13 AM
  #91  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,431
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mongo View Post
notice, that, this is being done by the DOT, not the FAA.
our exemption from Faa regulation does not apply to the department of transportation.
Hi Mongo ,

While I will preface this with the statement that I know the news usually gets the facts mixed up , Both CBS and NBC reported this morning that it is the FAA who is enacting the registration requirement with no mention of the DOT .

Have anyone of you gents seen news reports naming the FAA rather than the DOT as being behind this ?
Old 10-19-2015, 03:48 AM
  #92  
804
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan, IN
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by combatpigg View Post
804...do you believe in "Anti Matter" and "Alternate Universes"...?
This is where you can find irrefutable proof about things that have never taken their course in our reality.
Otherwise, you will need to exercise some degree of common sense to believe in what I do.
Since you were an outspoken supporter of the PPP, let that speak for itself your powers of reason, forward thinking and judgement.
Just as I thought.
You've got nothing.
As always.
Old 10-19-2015, 04:00 AM
  #93  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by combatpigg View Post
Nope, I refuse to believe they are that stupid or immune to public ridicule. Not the folks who they ultimately answer to, at least.
Nobody with a room temperature IQ and any self respect could confuse what I fly with a drone.
You can make a drone out of a large Party Balloon or a discarded cardboard box, but that does not make balloons and common household garbage, DRONES.

Read their record of controller reports of UAV violations. Plenty of model airplanes mentioned in that. They understand your distinction, they just don't care.
Old 10-19-2015, 04:01 AM
  #94  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
Hi Mongo ,

While I will preface this with the statement that I know the news usually gets the facts mixed up , Both CBS and NBC reported this morning that it is the FAA who is enacting the registration requirement with no mention of the DOT .

Have anyone of you gents seen news reports naming the FAA rather than the DOT as being behind this ?
The FAA is an agency within the DOT, so it does not matter.
Old 10-19-2015, 04:11 AM
  #95  
804
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan, IN
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
What? That there are possible state and location actions in work to regulate drones? Heck, AMA admits that on their website. As for other connections, I merely asked a question. Do people feel better about the future of the hobby since AMA chose to allow FPV and embraced drones or do they feel about it's future? Simple question, no "proof" required.

My point is that by not saying "drones" are not part of our "programming", the AMA linked forever hobby flying with drone flying in the mind of the public, legislators, and/or the media. Subtle distinctions are lost on these groups, as evidenced by the sensationalized reporting. I think it would have been a much stronger public position had AMA not embraced drones, as there would be a clear bright line to the public, legislators, and the media.


Oh, and for proof of pending legislation, here's just one place to look: http://uavs.insct.org/
I highly doubt that more than maybe 1% of the public, and maybe 5% of state or local legislators are even aware of the AMA, much less what AMA has said about drones. No connection there, sorry.
Your question is not just simple, but simple minded. "People", as in the"public", don't know about the
AMA. No connection there. Sorry.
To this day, I have still not seen any
media or public or legislative or regulatory action
linked specifically to AMA's position on drones.
AMA says to fly drones safely , that's the position.
The drone problem is because some people don't
follow that advice.
Any new regs are because of that, not AMA's
"embracing" of drones.
Again, I challenge you, combatpigg, or astrofog
to prove otherwise.
Old 10-19-2015, 04:13 AM
  #96  
CESSNA 421
My Feedback: (17)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Charles, MO
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Of course the simplest solution would be to ban "Drones" or multirotor aircraft altogether.
Old 10-19-2015, 04:14 AM
  #97  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
To the FAA our models are drones.
And to the public, and to legislators, and to the media. On the other hand, had AMA not linked "hobby" flying and quads by embracing them, it would have been much easier to draw a distinction. AMA went after membership $$. I expect that by this time next year we'll see tens of thousands of drone buyers become AMA members. Yeah right.
Old 10-19-2015, 04:14 AM
  #98  
flyinwalenda
My Feedback: (5)
 
flyinwalenda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Northeast, PA
Posts: 3,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

It is either the lamestream media's attempt to sensationalize the story stating the DOT is registering, instead of the FAA, or just their own ignorance in not knowing the facts.
Although it's not hard to imagine the government wasting millions of dollars to "create" another agency/department within the DOT to address this.
Old 10-19-2015, 04:21 AM
  #99  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by flyinwalenda View Post
Although it's not hard to imagine the government wasting millions of dollars to "create" another agency/department within the DOT to address this.
You got that right.

Mike
Old 10-19-2015, 04:45 AM
  #100  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
And to the public, and to legislators, and to the media. On the other hand, had AMA not linked "hobby" flying and quads by embracing them, it would have been much easier to draw a distinction. AMA went after membership $$. I expect that by this time next year we'll see tens of thousands of drone buyers become AMA members. Yeah right.
I don't agree. All the FAA sees is that both are recreational UAV. AMA embracing the MR is a plus not a minus. If they ignored them then only the MR manufactures would fight the FAA, then if losing the FAA would then gun for the "traditional models". I see little difference myself. The only reason it is a problem it the vast number sold. If the same number of traditional ready to fly models were sold we would have the same issue.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.