View Poll Results: Was it a mistake or not for the AMA to embrace drones ?
Voters: 356. You may not vote on this poll
Yes or No , Do you think the AMA was right or wrong to embrace DRONES ?
#451
If you go to the AMA website and spend a few minutes reading , you will find that yes , in fact , the AMA is attempting to not only condone #550 FPV , but ALSO BLOS commercial operations . I have read this myself and this is the basis for this thread . Specifically , check out the "STEM" educational partnership whereby the "Next generation of drone pilots" are receiving AMA money to be educated in drone ops . The training specifically mentions "Preparing them for the jobs of the future" , sure sounds commercial to me .
Thank you for asking ....
Thank you for asking ....
#452
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.
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.
#453
My Feedback: (49)
I see plenty of planes just above the 500 foot limit, and many are in areas where they should be above 1000. One even below an antennae about a thousand feet away and he should have been well above that. Not airliners mind you but there are people in them and they were at risk. This is well outside the 5 mile limit.
§ 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.
#454
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.
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.
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 .
#455
My Feedback: (26)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techno...1&ocid=UE01DHP
#457
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
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
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techno...1&ocid=UE01DHP
* Future Drone Operators Of America
#460
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 ?
#461
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
https://www.change.org/p/ama-members-get-drones-away-from-model-aviation-and-ama
#462
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
https://www.change.org/p/ama-members-get-drones-away-from-model-aviation-and-ama
#463
My Feedback: (1)
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
#464
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 .
#465
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.
#466
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
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
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
#467
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.
Bottom line being that flying cameras aren't worth eventually seeing our hobby regulated to death over ....
#468
My Feedback: (1)
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.
Regards,
Astro
#469
Honestly my friend , can you tell me that if flying cameras never existed , the FAA would have bothered to regulate a non existing problem ?
#470
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.
#471
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
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.
#472
My Feedback: (1)
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.
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
#473
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
#474
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
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
#475
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