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

Yes or No , Do you think the AMA was right or wrong to embrace DRONES ?

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.
View Poll Results: Was it a mistake or not for the AMA to embrace drones ?
Yes
77.25%
No
22.75%
Voters: 356. You may not vote on this poll

Yes or No , Do you think the AMA was right or wrong to embrace DRONES ?

Old 01-11-2016, 01:06 PM
  #701  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

sometimes? haha....

You've probably been on this planet longer than I have, so you've seen more. I'm still a babe in the woods with rose colored lenses!
Old 01-11-2016, 01:29 PM
  #702  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Well sometimes it takes a 2x4 to make a mule move.
Old 01-11-2016, 01:37 PM
  #703  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
Sorry, procia is right I am prone to hyperbole sometimes.
Sometimes?
Old 01-11-2016, 01:56 PM
  #704  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
Well sometimes it takes a 2x4 to make a mule move.
hee haw!!
Old 01-11-2016, 04:42 PM
  #705  
Rob2160
Senior Member
 
Rob2160's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 4,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
Actually most indecencies were LOS. Flying them near airports and aircraft, etc. Or forest fires, not necessarily BLOS.
All of the documented collisions with full size aircraft I was able to locate involved LOS flying with RC fixed wing aircraft or gliders.

But I agree the real problems started when GPS equipped multi rotors hit the scene in large numbers.

Last edited by Rob2160; 01-11-2016 at 05:29 PM.
Old 01-11-2016, 04:53 PM
  #706  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

The Problem with the FAA Confiscating sUAS/UAV/Drones/FPV Equipped fixed wing is they have to catch the Perpetrator. Out of the hundreds of sightings not one person or their Drones have been Apprehended Prosecuted or even Photographed. Not even the Drunken Federal employes that crashed a DJI DRONE on the White House lawn. Despite Out of all the sightings by commercial aircraft and their ability to report the sightings in REAL TIME not one DRONE has been captured nor has any of their Owners ... U just can't catch something that is there for a minute than disappears into the ground clutter and is gone in seconds. The FAA will never have the Personal to catch more than a couple out of the Hundreds of just the sightings, what about all the DRONES flying that are never sighted by any one. The FAA or Local Law Enforcement confiscating DRONES Just ain't' gonna happen... To Protect the Flying Public and people to EDUCATE DRONE PILOTS NOT to FLY "When Where and How" they are Illegal is going to take a very Large and Long Media Campaign by the FAA / AMA/ LHS/ Manufactures / Distributors / and anyone involved in anyway at all. It's not much different than traffic laws, Everyone over 16 and has a drivers liscense knows the traffic laws and if they obeyed the traffic laws there would be no need for traffic cops. Education is far easier that enforcement. I ask out of all the sitings below how many were apprehended or Prosecuted.

"NONE".



August 12- Pilot reports of unmanned aircraft have increased dramatically over the past year, from a total of , 238 sightings in all of 2014 to more than 650 by August 9 of this year. The FAA wants to send out a clear message that operating drones around airplanes and helicopters is dangerous and illegal. Unauthorized operators may be subject to stiff fines and criminal charges, including possible jail time.
Pilots of a variety of different types of aircraft – including many large, commercial air carriers – reported spotting 16 unmanned aircraft in June of 2014, and 36 the following month. This year, 138 pilots reported seeing drones at altitudes of up to 10,000 feet during the month of June, and another 137 in July.

Last edited by HoundDog; 01-11-2016 at 04:58 PM.
Old 01-11-2016, 05:07 PM
  #707  
Rob2160
Senior Member
 
Rob2160's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 4,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog View Post
The Problem with the FAA Confiscating sUAS/UAV/Drones/FPV Equipped fixed wing is they have to catch the Perpetrator. Out of the hundreds of sightings not one person or their Drones have been Apprehended Prosecuted or even Photographed...


Never say Never HD... you have been around long enough to know that...

http://abc7.com/news/drone-operator-...copter/960511/

I don't know if they eventually apprehended this next guy but they certainly did photograph him. Watch the video.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/faa-...licopte/nkYk7/

Last edited by Rob2160; 01-11-2016 at 05:22 PM.
Old 01-11-2016, 05:11 PM
  #708  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog View Post
The Problem with the FAA Confiscating sUAS/UAV/Drones/FPV Equipped fixed wing is they have to catch the Perpetrator. Out of the hundreds of sightings not one person or their Drones have been Apprehended Prosecuted or even Photographed. Not even the Drunken Federal employes that crashed a DJI DRONE on the White House lawn. Despite Out of all the sightings by commercial aircraft and their ability to report the sightings in REAL TIME not one DRONE has been captured nor has any of their Owners ... U just can't catch something that is there for a minute than disappears into the ground clutter and is gone in seconds. The FAA will never have the Personal to catch more than a couple out of the Hundreds of just the sightings, what about all the DRONES flying that are never sighted by any one. The FAA or Local Law Enforcement confiscating DRONES Just ain't' gonna happen... To Protect the Flying Public and people to EDUCATE DRONE PILOTS NOT to FLY "When Where and How" they are Illegal is going to take a very Large and Long Media Campaign by the FAA / AMA/ LHS/ Manufactures / Distributors / and anyone involved in anyway at all. It's not much different than traffic laws, Everyone over 16 and has a drivers liscense knows the traffic laws and if they obeyed the traffic laws there would be no need for traffic cops. Education is far easier that enforcement. I ask out of all the sitings below how many were apprehended or Prosecuted.

"NONE".



August 12- Pilot reports of unmanned aircraft have increased dramatically over the past year, from a total of , 238 sightings in all of 2014 to more than 650 by August 9 of this year. The FAA wants to send out a clear message that operating drones around airplanes and helicopters is dangerous and illegal. Unauthorized operators may be subject to stiff fines and criminal charges, including possible jail time.
Pilots of a variety of different types of aircraft – including many large, commercial air carriers – reported spotting 16 unmanned aircraft in June of 2014, and 36 the following month. This year, 138 pilots reported seeing drones at altitudes of up to 10,000 feet during the month of June, and another 137 in July.
Slow your role HD....the teacher in NY who flew his DJI into the tennis stadium not only had his phantom confiscated, he was arrested and his case is pending. He was also at risk of losing his job as well. The two guys flying near the police heli (again in NY City area) were also caught and arrested, their cases I'm not sure what's up with them. Yes, only two case, but there aren't a ton of these cases where the perp's are caught.
Old 01-11-2016, 07:48 PM
  #709  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Rob2160 View Post
Never say Never HD... you have been around long enough to know that...

http://abc7.com/news/drone-operator-...copter/960511/

I don't know if they eventually apprehended this next guy but they certainly did photograph him. Watch the video.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/faa-...licopte/nkYk7/
One in thousands ... Not quite (292 Million to 1) the odds on our $1.3 BILLION Power Ball Lottery this Wednesday.
Old 01-12-2016, 03:36 AM
  #710  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Still more than "NONE".
Old 01-12-2016, 07:12 AM
  #711  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83 View Post
Slow your role HD....the teacher in NY who flew his DJI into the tennis stadium not only had his phantom confiscated, he was arrested and his case is pending. He was also at risk of losing his job as well. The two guys flying near the police heli (again in NY City area) were also caught and arrested, their cases I'm not sure what's up with them. Yes, only two case, but there aren't a ton of these cases where the perp's are caught.
How close did he get to a MANED aircraft?????? Were talking AIRLiners here not people on the ground ... don't give a crap about them the FA has nothing to do with them.
Old 01-12-2016, 07:14 AM
  #712  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog View Post
How close did he get to a MANED aircraft?????? Were talking AIRLiners here not people on the ground ... don't give a crap about them the FA has nothing to do with them.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/04/us/us-...-drone-arrest/

http://abc7ny.com/sports/nyc-science...s-open/969670/
Old 01-12-2016, 07:18 AM
  #713  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog View Post
How close did he get to a MANED aircraft?????? Were talking AIRLiners here not people on the ground ... don't give a crap about them the FA has nothing to do with them.

You never specified, but before we were talking about all infractions. So you got called on it and decided to move the goalpost.
Old 01-12-2016, 07:39 AM
  #714  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog View Post
How close did he get to a MANED aircraft?????? Were talking AIRLiners here not people on the ground ... don't give a crap about them the FA has nothing to do with them.
As Sport noted...you didn't specify. Reminds me of the guy in the other thread who asked for proof of something, then when it was provided, decided to change the request. The issue is not only focused on collisions with aircraft, it's also about the damage or person or property on the ground.
Old 01-12-2016, 07:45 AM
  #715  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

U get all excited about a guy crashing into a TENNIS match man I thought it was something important. Good grief the only thing less boring is watching GOLF. At least they had something to talk about later. Just think if DRONES could swarm like Bees.
Old 01-12-2016, 07:49 AM
  #716  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83 View Post
As Sport noted...you didn't specify. Reminds me of the guy in the other thread who asked for proof of something, then when it was provided, decided to change the request. The issue is not only focused on collisions with aircraft, it's also about the damage or person or property on the ground.
If that were true there would be double walled cages

around every Pilot Station at every AMA field and an 30

foot chine link fence in front of the Pits.

Maybe the FAA should ban all Model flying except at

Designated Fling sights ... Whens the last time U flew of

Reservation (AMA SITE)?

Last edited by HoundDog; 01-12-2016 at 07:51 AM.
Old 01-12-2016, 07:51 AM
  #717  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog View Post
U get all excited about a guy crashing into a TENNIS match man I thought it was something important. Good grief the only thing less boring is watching GOLF. At least they had something to talk about later. Just think if DRONES could swarm like Bees.
Why not try it yourself and show us how insignificant it is?
Old 01-12-2016, 08:56 AM
  #718  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog View Post
If that were true there would be double walled cages

around every Pilot Station at every AMA field and an 30

foot chine link fence in front of the Pits.

Maybe the FAA should ban all Model flying except at

Designated Fling sights ... Whens the last time U flew of

Reservation (AMA SITE)?
That the FAA and others are making way too much of this, has been one of my points all along.
Old 01-12-2016, 12:50 PM
  #719  
warningshot
 
warningshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: OU-OSU OK
Posts: 548
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog View Post
If that were true there would be double walled cages

around every Pilot Station at every AMA field and an 30

foot chine link fence in front of the Pits.

Maybe the FAA should ban all Model flying except at

Designated Fling sights ... Whens the last time U flew of

Reservation (AMA SITE)?
About 1 hour ago. No big deal.
Old 01-12-2016, 01:07 PM
  #720  
VF84sluggo
My Feedback: (55)
 
VF84sluggo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL
Posts: 2,367
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

...still waiting on the rule/regulation/interpretation/whatever from the FAA that says someone "is probably" violating the law for flying a BLOS-capable "drone", whether or not the "drone" is being operated that way; in other words, simply flying a "drone" with BLOS-capability "is probably" illegal.

Surely someone has found it by now. C'mon, we gotta look out for each other here! Don't let someone unknowingly break the law when you know better. As we all have been taught, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Old 01-12-2016, 01:12 PM
  #721  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

I said probably will be illegal, not probably is. I said there is nothing right now.
Old 01-12-2016, 06:52 PM
  #722  
init4fun
Thread Starter
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,234
Received 44 Likes on 38 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by VF84sluggo View Post
...still waiting on the rule/regulation/interpretation/whatever from the FAA that says someone "is probably" violating the law for flying a BLOS-capable "drone", whether or not the "drone" is being operated that way; in other words, simply flying a "drone" with BLOS-capability "is probably" illegal.

Surely someone has found it by now. C'mon, we gotta look out for each other here! Don't let someone unknowingly break the law when you know better. As we all have been taught, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Well , , , A real wordsmith will tell ya , that since in order to be a model aircraft covered under #336 , A model has to be flown in compliance with the CBO's (the AMA , in other words) code of safe flight conduct . Now , since the only CBO at present does not allow BLOS (even though they allow the use of equipment that could fly BLOS at the pilot's whim , but that's a whole 'nother can O worms) that would mean that to fly BLOS one will have lost the #336 exemption and now be subject to the more strict rules of flight plans , pilot testing , and so on . But just carrying the equipment but not flying BLOS ? Well , isn't that what AMA #550 FPV is supposed to be ? You use the camera but the actual craft never leaves the spotter's direct sight ? While this is the very essence of #550 FPV and of course right now not breaking any rules as long as #550 is honestly adhered to , it can't be seen as "illegal" as long as the spotter can see it . Now for the fly in the ointment ...... Just what percentage I wonder of FPV flying IS done in accordance with #550 ? As in , how many FPV flights , whether they start out as #550 compliant flights or not , end up BLOS (even beyond the "spotter's" LOS , if one is present) and now are outside of the #550 , and by virtue of that are outside #336 , and in for a world of legal trouble if theirs is the first BLOS flight that ends in a horribly newsworthy crash ? I see having the equipment to fly BLOS but being told you can't , as being in the same category as giving someone a 200 MPH sportscar and telling them they can not go one MPH over 75 ! Just how many times do you think that car's speedo is gonna be north of 100 ?

Oh , Speaking of things sporty ,

OK Sport , Flame suits on , let er rip !!!
Old 01-12-2016, 08:10 PM
  #723  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
Well , , , A real wordsmith will tell ya , that since in order to be a model aircraft covered under #336 , A model has to be flown in compliance with the CBO's (the AMA , in other words) code of safe flight conduct . Now , since the only CBO at present does not allow BLOS (even though they allow the use of equipment that could fly BLOS at the pilot's whim , but that's a whole 'nother can O worms) that would mean that to fly BLOS one will have lost the #336 exemption and now be subject to the more strict rules of flight plans , pilot testing , and so on . But just carrying the equipment but not flying BLOS ? Well , isn't that what AMA #550 FPV is supposed to be ? You use the camera but the actual craft never leaves the spotter's direct sight ? While this is the very essence of #550 FPV and of course right now not breaking any rules as long as #550 is honestly adhered to , it can't be seen as "illegal" as long as the spotter can see it . Now for the fly in the ointment ...... Just what percentage I wonder of FPV flying IS done in accordance with #550 ? As in , how many FPV flights , whether they start out as #550 compliant flights or not , end up BLOS (even beyond the "spotter's" LOS , if one is present) and now are outside of the #550 , and by virtue of that are outside #336 , and in for a world of legal trouble if theirs is the first BLOS flight that ends in a horribly newsworthy crash ? I see having the equipment to fly BLOS but being told you can't , as being in the same category as giving someone a 200 MPH sportscar and telling them they can not go one MPH over 75 ! Just how many times do you think that car's speedo is gonna be north of 100 ?

Oh , Speaking of things sporty ,

OK Sport , Flame suits on , let er rip !!!
Mostly with you on this, init. One little quibble that seems worthy of note though, is what is legit by AMAs reckoning is not okay with FAA, and that involves goggles for FPV. FAA says goggles are an obstruction to pilot's LOS view of the model being controlled. Not clear is if they consider that operator's eyes on a screen instead, and so diverted from a LOS view, is considered a violation of the FAA LOS-only stance. Point is somebody flying FPV by AMA rules may not be in compliance FAA's rules, and it may turn that FPV is not allowed for recreational drones, period. I'm sure the answer will fall out soon, as in the first incidence of a FPV flyer getting tagged for unsafe operation while not using goggles.

Last edited by cj_rumley; 01-12-2016 at 08:13 PM.
Old 01-13-2016, 04:33 AM
  #724  
TheEdge
My Feedback: (788)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bonita, CA
Posts: 1,030
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

I found the following link to be entertaining and educating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ-js5zn-I0
Old 01-13-2016, 04:57 AM
  #725  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
Well , , , A real wordsmith will tell ya , that since in order to be a model aircraft covered under #336 , A model has to be flown in compliance with the CBO's (the AMA , in other words) code of safe flight conduct . Now , since the only CBO at present does not allow BLOS (even though they allow the use of equipment that could fly BLOS at the pilot's whim , but that's a whole 'nother can O worms) that would mean that to fly BLOS one will have lost the #336 exemption and now be subject to the more strict rules of flight plans , pilot testing , and so on . But just carrying the equipment but not flying BLOS ? Well , isn't that what AMA #550 FPV is supposed to be ? You use the camera but the actual craft never leaves the spotter's direct sight ? While this is the very essence of #550 FPV and of course right now not breaking any rules as long as #550 is honestly adhered to , it can't be seen as "illegal" as long as the spotter can see it . Now for the fly in the ointment ...... Just what percentage I wonder of FPV flying IS done in accordance with #550 ? As in , how many FPV flights , whether they start out as #550 compliant flights or not , end up BLOS (even beyond the "spotter's" LOS , if one is present) and now are outside of the #550 , and by virtue of that are outside #336 , and in for a world of legal trouble if theirs is the first BLOS flight that ends in a horribly newsworthy crash ? I see having the equipment to fly BLOS but being told you can't , as being in the same category as giving someone a 200 MPH sportscar and telling them they can not go one MPH over 75 ! Just how many times do you think that car's speedo is gonna be north of 100 ?

Oh , Speaking of things sporty ,

OK Sport , Flame suits on , let er rip !!!
Actually good. But would like to add that section 336 will essentially become part 101. If not flown as part of a CBO then you will have to fly under part 107 and that does not allow BLOS either, but does seem to allow FPV with a visual observer. However, I do not believe many people will be paying attention and eventually the FAA or other government agency may ban the sale all BLOS capable sUAV. Except possibly to those that have a commercial sUAV license.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.