Sport_Pilot

OK, so you want the AMA to fund these lawsuits themselves? They are partners with others who have as much or more funds for lawyers, so IMO it is smart to support them as well.

acdii

If the FAA think this will stop someone from using a "drone" in a manner that could cause potential harm to an airliner, well, they are fools. Look how well the anti gun law in Chicago worked. The law simply states, it is illegal to be in possession of a firearm. Yet, how many shootings have there been when this law was in effect.

I for one am not going to register
I for one will continue to fly under the AMA Guidlelines, and until such time that you have to present to go to a Fly in, I will go to Fly ins.

Registering will not make me a safer flyer, I already am one, all it does is puts me on a fly list. Great, another hackable list that will have my information on. No Thanks!

Good luck enforcing this, no LEO will waste his time checking if a RC plane flying at a club field has a registration number.

BTW, when the next AMA ballots come out, vote out whoever is currently there.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

This should take care of the Low flying pilots:

§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

init4fun

Hi acdii ,

My problem with this whole model aircraft registration business is ;

I have read in the FAA document that one of the primary objectives of this rule is to be able to identify the owner of any "UAS" that is involved in illegal activity or causes an accident involving full scale aircraft . . Ok , so on the surface they want the public to think they're gonna be able to identify lawbreakers . Now , these lawbreakers , who happen to break laws , aren't too likely to register their drone any more than they're gonna register their illegal firearms . So , here we are , the ones who follow the rules , with our own pre existing database of 185K or so rule following flyers , and the FAA refuses to accept that . Why ? Well , unfortunately , some of us feel that the FAA don't trust the AMA because after getting our "inhof exemption" the AMA went and gutted the original doc #550 which likely spooked the FAA some . Now , as the only recognized "CBO" , the AMA was gonna have under it's umbrella all these drone flyers that the FAA would have no control over ? No Way ! The FAA ain't being played like that and we have the situation as it exists today . The AMA tried a "power grab" , the FAA over ruled . Done . Now as to enforcement , My guess would be that untill there was some kind of incident , the "FAA police" won't be hiding in every tree looking to see if my P-51 has it's number nice and visible . God forbid anything ever happens the only two numbers that are gonna matter are the FAA registration number and the Lawyer's phone number ! That's when a proper FAA registration had best be in hand cause break one rule prior and now an accident can quickly turn into some ugly criminal charges .

Prop_Washer2

My Feedback: (26)

Oh...GTF...over it, Duh...Drones are here and will remain here...go back to your Escapements and Free Flight models with Rubber Band Motors...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techno...1&ocid=UE01DHP

init4fun

Yep , kinda like hemroids , and about as welcome ........

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Spoken like a FDOOA* Shop Steward....!

* Future Drone Operators Of America

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Init
Is it true Your wife Just bought U a DRONE for Christmas ... Oh Man I hope I didn't let the Drone out of the bag. sorry

rcmiket

"Yep , kinda like hemroids , and about as welcome ........ "

Pretty Funny.

Mike

init4fun

So , I figured as we roll on up to close to 500 posts , I'd take a look at some of the personal insults that have pervaded this thread . These that I've quoted , which aren't all of them by far , are examples of the nastiness that this question has brought out in some of the pro drone crowd . You may notice one poster's personal attacks are absent from the list , Sorry Hound , if I re posted all your attacks it would amount to re posting just about each and every post you've made to the thread , and we wouldn't want the massive bandwidth crunch to cripple RCU , now would we ? Fact of the matter no matter HOW hard the pro drone folks try to attack me or discredit the question is that by a large margin people here do think they're should be a healthy separation of model aircraft and drones ! So regardless of which side anyone is on , and since this sure does seem a question that's on a lot of folk's minds , could we please go on from here discussing the subject itself rather than posting the kinds of insults I've quoted above ?

islandflyer

Petition to separate drones from Model Aircraft and AMA went over 100 in about 3 hours....not bad
https://www.change.org/p/ama-members-get-drones-away-from-model-aviation-and-ama

Sport_Pilot

I'm not signing because I don't know what they mean by a drone. And doubt the AMA will either. I would if a drone was defined as having GPS.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Please don't sign it if you don't agree. Not everyone will. It's okay, really!

This is just a petition, not a final draft of a Constitutional amendment. (way too early for that!).

Its' only purpose is to show that there may be a significant amount of people that are dissatisfied and are asking for possible reconsideration of the current (and future) rules/regulations.

Regards,

Astro

init4fun

I will sign it because it has become increasingly clear with this new FAA regulation that model aviation is being negatively affected by drone operations . Once this ruling came down it made it crystal clear to me that any device that could permit BLOS flight has become a direct liability to our hobby . I will agree with Sport that the petition should have included a very brief description of what exactly we're looking to separate ourselves from , with the seemingly varied descriptions of the word drone . To Sport , it seems the GPS is the determining factor . To myself , I'd use the far simpler catch all of anything that is equipped fly BLOS is a potential drone , and sadly that does include FPV gear as presently allowed under AMA doc # 550 . The line is too blurry when all a # 550 pilot needs to do is to fly BLOS to turn his # 550 condoned FPV into a drone . Guys , please remember , the distinction between drone and model aircraft is the mission assigned to each , and as such , a model aircraft has no need of either GPS nor camera to carry out it's mission of being a model aircraft .....

I would like to publicly thank Herve for bringing this petition to my attention . Remember Herve , the key to the success of any petition is exposure , the more folks that know the more potential supporters can be gained .

Sport_Pilot

The problem with separating FPV and cameras from this is that FPV was around back in the 90's and consisted of a video camera on your RC. At first just to record, but as soon as you had 2.5 Gb video transmission you had FPV. So FPV has been part of our hobby for a couple of decades or maybe more. I have no problem with FPV used per AMA guidelines.

rcmiket

+1 If enough sign they will get the message. What's the deal with everyone going nuts over wording lately? First the poll now this.
Don't sign it if you don't agree or write your own. Just to be clear it's not personal just a observation.

Mike

init4fun

As is the case with other technologies , things that start off innocently enough can evolve into dangerous territory . Once the 2,4 video enabled BLOS it put flying cameras in a position to do our hobby harm such as the registration ruling we have facing us today . Honestly my friend , can you tell me that if flying cameras never existed , the FAA would have bothered to regulate a non existing problem ? AC 91 57 served us well for years and would still be the only FAA word on us had flying cameras not been involved , in my opinion .

I agree Mike that there is or should be a very simple defining point ; LOS ability only = model plane , BLOS ability = drone . It really can't get much simpler than that . Before the other day's ruling I was willing to let # 550 FPV stand but now since the AMA has proven unable to protect our rights in light of the blurred line they created with # 550 , it's time to separate out anything that could allow BLOS flight from our model aircraft program .

Bottom line being that flying cameras aren't worth eventually seeing our hobby regulated to death over ....

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

AMA allows FPV with a spotter, WITHIN LOS. I have no problem with this, either BUT how many FPV guys (besides the racers) really want to fly FPV within LOS? I would guess that it is an insignificant minority

Regards,

Astro

Sport_Pilot

I don't think there is any real problem now! The FAA made up a bunch of phony reports from controllers who were forced to make reports. Yes there are a few incedents making the news but that is small. There is not one mid air yet! The FAA started moving in when they were asked to integrate sUAV and they couldn't stand for the idea that they could not regulate model airplanes. This is about control and money, not safety. It would have happened no matter hos the AMA stood on so called drones.

Sport_Pilot

That is all they did back in the 90's. They were big and expensive and the video did not work well much beyond LOS. But I noticed some using FPV MR within LOS just a few weeks ago. I think many do not trust the model or drone coming back safely when BLOS. I believe the same is true outside the field, but even LOS is bad when it is a thousand feet off the approach of a major airport.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Agree with most of that...except that I see that control can have a positive effect on safety. Don't see this as a big power grab for the FAA, i doubt they care less about controlling our planes. They have been around for how many years, if they wanted to control them they could have done it over the past 40 plus years. Nor the money piece..they don't "profit" from this. They respond to congress...who respond to the voters

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

So, in your mind, this is all about a conspiracy theory?

I, personally, have an extreme distaste for legislation for "safety's" sake. I am a firm believer in Darwin's theory, however, it is not very hard to see how MILLIONS of drones, flying autonomously in the NAS represents an absolute concern on the FAA's part. If it were just the safety of the operator of such craft, I would say, "MEH, let them have at it", but in this case, it is the safety of MILLIONS of innocent lives of air travelers at stake. Do we REALLY want to wait until the first mid-air tragedy occurs? I THINK NOT!

Regards,

Astro

Sport_Pilot

They had no legal leg to stand on till the IOAC said model aircraft are airplanes.

Sport_Pilot

I see almost no chance of a mid air tragedy, even if there is a mid air. Damage to the aircraft but no tragedy.

init4fun

Hey Sport ,

With a little wallmart "toy grade" drone , yea , I agree it'd be like a bug getting squashed on your car's windshield .

But have you seen the size of some of those things ? Just as we model aircraft flyers have some pretty big ones , so too do the drone folks . In fact , the drone the channel 4 news here keeps showing when they air the story is almost 4 feet across which gotta go at least what ? maybe 5 or 10 pounds , maybe more for all I know ? A drone that large hitting a jet's windshield could very well penetrate it and it would only take once .

This is yet another reason why I'm such a firm believer in the separation of model aircraft & drones . Think of it like the separation of Church & State , See , not ALL segregation is bad , despite what all the new agey hopey changey politically correct folks would try to have ya believe