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 11-29-2015, 02:07 PM
  #1  
init4fun
Thread Starter
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,497
Received 9 Likes on 7 Posts
Default Yes or No , Do you think the AMA was wrong or right to embrace DRONES ?

Since this seems to be the central theme being discussed in a couple of different threads here , I figured a simple yes/no poll was in order . Now , bear in mind that for the purpose of this question I'm using the word drone in the description of BLOS and/or commercial operations , and not AMA permitted FPV under doc#550 .

So , what do ya say , and why , mistake or not ?

Last edited by init4fun; 12-02-2015 at 04:11 AM. Reason: Attempt to rectify the difference in thread wording VS poll wording
Old 11-29-2015, 02:37 PM
  #2  
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

The greater need was to make sure that Traditional Radio Control flyers would not get lumped in with the inevitable legislation and government controls that Drone Pilots were overdue to be subject to.
During this time, nothing prevented AMA members from enjoying the thrills of flying quadcopters configured with conventional [non drone] control.
Old 11-29-2015, 03:29 PM
  #3  
skylark-flier
 
skylark-flier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: VA, Luray
Posts: 2,130
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

JMHO, but I feel that if AMA didn't make some sort of showing with these NON-COMMERCIAL drones "we" would have been totally buried in the govt backlash that we can all see coming. They HAD to make a representation, and drones simply aren't going away any time soon. Including them in AMA's world was/is the smart thing - at least there's an organized body that the govt "semi"-recognizes speaking for ALL of us.

That's as it should be.

BTW, I don't fly the quads, have never even seen one operate. But I've got nothing against them, as long as the person controlling them has some brains and a bit of common courtesy.

As far as the commercial bunch goes, they've got the $$$$$ to spend buying government. Let'em spend those $$$$$$. They're still going to get regulated until they turn purple, but I love to see capitalism at work.

Last edited by skylark-flier; 11-29-2015 at 03:33 PM.
Old 11-29-2015, 04:52 PM
  #4  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

LoL...now I went and did it, I hit Yes as I read the "not" in the thread title. I'm in for it now.

I meant to say yes, I'm fine with the AMA embracing "drones". Would have been virtually impossible to split the hairs on "drone" versus "non-drone" knowing that govt oversight was on the way (and needed as well). The AMA is the industry/hobby leader and has 70 plus years of safety and fun built into the core of what they do and represent, I think their overall participation was an absolute necessity as subject matter experts. I also think the potential for additional members into the AMA was an added plus as well.
Old 11-29-2015, 05:12 PM
  #5  
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 init4fun View Post
Since this seems to be the central theme being discussed in a couple of different threads here , I figured a simple yes/no poll was in order . Now , bear in mind that for the purpose of this question I'm using the word drone in the description of BLOS and/or commercial operations , and not AMA permitted FPV under doc#550 .

So , what do ya say , and why , mistake or not ?
When did AMA "embrace"
BLOS FPV?
Old 11-29-2015, 06:09 PM
  #6  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 1,971
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83 View Post
LoL...now I went and did it, I hit Yes as I read the "not" in the thread title. I'm in for it now.

I meant to say yes, I'm fine with the AMA embracing "drones". Would have been virtually impossible to split the hairs on "drone" versus "non-drone" knowing that govt oversight was on the way (and needed as well). The AMA is the industry/hobby leader and has 70 plus years of safety and fun built into the core of what they do and represent, I think their overall participation was an absolute necessity as subject matter experts. I also think the potential for additional members into the AMA was an added plus as well.
OR...this was your coming out of the closet moment! LOL

Astro
Old 11-29-2015, 06:21 PM
  #7  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Thrust out under the blaring lights of the AMA threads...oh the shame and indignity of it all. The poll would show a whopping 3 if I had taken a sec to read the multiple questions. On the brighter side of things, I'm finally with the majority thought process !
Old 11-29-2015, 07:34 PM
  #8  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 1,971
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Here's another 14 well-known names in modeling that think the AMA should show distinct separation between "traditional" modeling and "drones".

[ATTACH]2133121[/IMG]


Regards,

Astro
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	An Open Letter to AMA Signed_Page_1 (3).jpg
Views:	609
Size:	371.6 KB
ID:	2133122   Click image for larger version

Name:	An Open Letter to AMA Signed_Page_2.jpg
Views:	549
Size:	220.1 KB
ID:	2133123   Click image for larger version

Name:	An Open Letter to AMA Signed_Page_3.jpg
Views:	497
Size:	116.5 KB
ID:	2133124   Click image for larger version

Name:	An Open Letter to AMA Signed_Page_4.jpg
Views:	405
Size:	44.2 KB
ID:	2133125  
Attached Files
File Type: pdf
Old 11-29-2015, 07:37 PM
  #9  
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

Regardless of the outcome, the AMA DID NOT do everything they COULD have done to draw a clear cut line of distinction between traditional RC and toys that are flown out of bounds.
The time to make FPV a recognized part of AMA flying would have been AFTER the FAA made their move.
Old 11-29-2015, 07:49 PM
  #10  
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 astrohog View Post
Here's another 14 well-known names in modeling that think the AMA should show distinct separation between "traditional" modeling and "drones".

[ATTACH]2133121[/IMG]


Regards,

Astro
Nice..!
This document is a Tsunami of common sense and solid logic, so many great points and so well written.
My hat is off to these guys.
Old 11-29-2015, 08:11 PM
  #11  
kdunlap
My Feedback: (12)
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Adding my signature,
Ken Dunlap
McLean, VA

Now add yours!
Old 11-29-2015, 09:27 PM
  #12  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Very encouraging to have these influential folks urging AMA EC to get back on track with the stated mission.
Old 11-30-2015, 01:56 AM
  #13  
MTK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Whippany, NJ
Posts: 5,386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I can't stand the damned thingies only from the perspective of the harm they potentially may do to conventional RC flight (regulation, legislation, more gov't control than exists today). As some have stated already, clear cut separation between them and conventional RC flight must be made and the arguments for the separation will need to be sold to the gov't. AMA involvement is the right path; they are my mouthpiece afterall on all matters RC, a discipline I'm fully entrenched in for almost 50 years.

On the other hand, I understand the appeal to many in this voyeur society. Mfr's have made them truly simple such that any idiot could operate them, emphasis on the idiot. Hence the reports we all hear on the evening news. Mfr's are rubbing their hands I'm sure since it will be Black Friday for them 'til year end and beyond. And the magazines have to love them from the ad revenue power these thingies bring...

We'll have to see how this phase plays out.....
Old 11-30-2015, 04:13 AM
  #14  
init4fun
Thread Starter
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,497
Received 9 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83 View Post
LoL...now I went and did it, I hit Yes as I read the "not" in the thread title. I'm in for it now.

I meant to say yes, I'm fine with the AMA embracing "drones". Would have been virtually impossible to split the hairs on "drone" versus "non-drone" knowing that govt oversight was on the way (and needed as well). The AMA is the industry/hobby leader and has 70 plus years of safety and fun built into the core of what they do and represent, I think their overall participation was an absolute necessity as subject matter experts. I also think the potential for additional members into the AMA was an added plus as well.

Hello Flying Friends ,

First , Thank You for all the great answers ! I do want to offer an apology for not being 100% clear since the wording of the poll and the wording of the thread itself seem backwards . My intent is that a YES vote means it is a mistake to embrace drones , and a NO vote means it was OK for the AMA to embrace them . I seem to have tripped up at least one poster , Porcia83 , and if I do another poll I'll have learned from this one that exact wording matters .

So far , Our Friend CombatPigg has most closely represented my feelings about this subject . Just remember , there is no right or wrong answer here , some will believe the acceptance of drones was good , and some will feel it's bad . Any and all explainations of how you feel about this , pro or con , will be welcomed .

Happy Flying
Old 11-30-2015, 05:54 AM
  #15  
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 combatpigg View Post
Regardless of the outcome, the AMA DID NOT do everything they COULD have done to draw a clear cut line of distinction between traditional RC and toys that are flown out of bounds.
The time to make FPV a recognized part of AMA flying would have been AFTER the FAA made their move.
Originally Posted by combatpigg View Post
Nice..!
This document is a Tsunami of common sense and solid logic, so many great points and so well written.
My hat is off to these guys.
The letter is well written and well intentioned, but imo has a few problems. I see some presumptions being made there, the first one being that the AMA actively promoted a blurring of the lines between Model Aviation and Drones. I don't see that. The next is that the ask the AMA to redirect itself to the intended purpose. Sort of presumptuous on that one. Who said they weren't doing that already, these folks just don't like the outcome. The most presumpiouts part of the letter is the paragraph about "Rich Hansen" and what he did as part of the committee. They have no idea what he did, or didn't do. They don't know what he made clear, and what he didn't, they were not part of this committee. They also make wild assumptions about "the drone" operator and what they know and don't know, and if they will join the AMA or not. That paragraph should have been left out. It's nice to read what they want, but more specifics on how the AMA should go about carrying out their suggestions was needed. They seem to overlook the fact that the Federal Government is involved. Oh, and for the record, they might have wanted to at least spell the guys name right they were talking about. It's Rich Hanson....not Hansen. Not one of those people caught that before they signed their name? I recall some here castigating the AMA for the amateurish press release they issued. Not a peep here about that error though.

The biggest issue I see though, is the date on the letter. 11-18-15. Sort of late to be weighing in with their thoughts after the fact. Did this whole issue just suddenly pop up with no warning? I don't think so. Where was this group of people all along the way? What were they doing all this time, just commenting on a web site, and looking for more signatures on the letter? They couldn't put their collective thoughts together ahead of time and present them to the EC? Would it have made sense for this self appointed committee to form a coalition and try to be involved in the actual process, after all there are some of the biggest names in the hobby right there. Heck they might have been able to have a seat at the table and actually witnessed what it was like to be part of that group, not just presume about what happened. Would having a more formal group of heavy hitters in the hobby advocate and argue their position have been more impactful than a letter from 14 people? I'm guessing it would. And really, what is stopping them from doing that now? So what's the game plan going forward, more letters?

Hey, at least they got together and agreed on something and let their feelings be known in a more formal manner, kudos to them for that.
Old 11-30-2015, 05:56 AM
  #16  
CESSNA 421
My Feedback: (17)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Charles, MO
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

The AMA threw all of it's members under the bus. It would be great if there was an alternate modeling association in competition with the AMA. As in all business "a sole source" is never good for the consumer. I think the Sport Flyers organization was a step in the right direction for competition with the AMA so perhaps we need another organization like them.
Old 11-30-2015, 06:00 AM
  #17  
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 CESSNA 421 View Post
The AMA threw all of it's members under the bus. It would be great if there was an alternate modeling association in competition with the AMA. As in all business "a sole source" is never good for the consumer. I think the Sport Flyers organization was a step in the right direction for competition with the AMA so perhaps we need another organization like them.
That's a great point, I'm a big believer in competition. It can sometimes bring out the best in each competitor, and most importantly, benefit the ultimate consumer. Might be something for this group of 14 to tackle. With their knowledge and experience in the hobby and all of the people they deal with, nothing is stopping them or anyone else from starting this endeavor.
Old 11-30-2015, 06:26 AM
  #18  
jester_s1
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 6,934
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

AMA didn't embrace BLOS and commercial operation of drones. They've been crystal clear that such operations fall outside of hobby RC and have nothing to do with the AMA or its stated mission. The poll is invalid.
Old 11-30-2015, 06:28 AM
  #19  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 1,971
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83 View Post
That's a great point, I'm a big believer in competition. It can sometimes bring out the best in each competitor, and most importantly, benefit the ultimate consumer. Might be something for this group of 14 to tackle. With their knowledge and experience in the hobby and all of the people they deal with, nothing is stopping them or anyone else from starting this endeavor.
Once again, you fail to see their point (just because you don't necessarily agree).

Their point was painfully obvious; The AMA is already THEIR organization. It was formed to advocate for THEM. WHY they would start a NEW organization after almost 80 years is beyond me. Wouldn't it make more sense for the droners to start THEIR own organization that would meet THEIR unique needs instead of relying on an antiquated organization that CLEARLY isn't advocating for THEM (just read the droners anti-AMA sentiment on RCG).

Porcia83, while everyone knows that you and I have had our disagreements in the past, I have to say that you have sunk to an all-time low with your hypocrisy!

You are constantly taking the supposed moral high ground by suggesting people proactively become part of the solution instead of, "just posting in an internet forum". Well, this group of folks did just that and you have the nerve to disregard their letter due to a typo? LOL

In another thread, you and Crispy questioned the integrity of Islandflyers statement that many of the manufacturers of modeling products held the same point of view as he did where it came to drones and "traditional" modeling. You berated and belittled his word and asked for proof. It is clear that you have no integrity whatsoever by replying to his proof of statements that you called out for.

Your words mean nothing, and now I am absolutely sure that we would NEVER enjoy a day of flying together if we happened upon each other at the flying field versus interacting over the internet. I simply refuse to associate with folks of little or no moral fiber.

Regards,

Astro
Old 11-30-2015, 06:51 AM
  #20  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Not only was it a mistake in the beginning they just keep on making them by not having a "polished" response to the "recommendations".

Mike
Old 11-30-2015, 06:53 AM
  #21  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jester_s1 View Post
AMA didn't embrace BLOS and commercial operation of drones. They've been crystal clear that such operations fall outside of hobby RC and have nothing to do with the AMA or its stated mission. The poll is invalid.
I'm not saying your wrong but you either feel they did or didn't make a mistake on this. Rather simple.

Mike
Old 11-30-2015, 06:55 AM
  #22  
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 astrohog View Post
Once again, you fail to see their point (just because you don't necessarily agree).

Their point was painfully obvious; The AMA is already THEIR organization. It was formed to advocate for THEM. WHY they would start a NEW organization after almost 80 years is beyond me. Wouldn't it make more sense for the droners to start THEIR own organization that would meet THEIR unique needs instead of relying on an antiquated organization that CLEARLY isn't advocating for THEM (just read the droners anti-AMA sentiment on RCG).

Porcia83, while everyone knows that you and I have had our disagreements in the past, I have to say that you have sunk to an all-time low with your hypocrisy!

You are constantly taking the supposed moral high ground by suggesting people proactively become part of the solution instead of, "just posting in an internet forum". Well, this group of folks did just that and you have the nerve to disregard their letter due to a typo? LOL

In another thread, you and Crispy questioned the integrity of Islandflyers statement that many of the manufacturers of modeling products held the same point of view as he did where it came to drones and "traditional" modeling. You berated and belittled his word and asked for proof. It is clear that you have no integrity whatsoever by replying to his proof of statements that you called out for.

Your words mean nothing, and now I am absolutely sure that we would NEVER enjoy a day of flying together if we happened upon each other at the flying field versus interacting over the internet. I simply refuse to associate with folks of little or no moral fiber.

Regards,

Astro
Sorry to hear that Astro, I'll cancel my flight. You're always welcome at my field. Can't think of a reason to not fly with someone based on a difference of opinion. That you take things so personally is disappointing.
Old 11-30-2015, 07:19 AM
  #23  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 1,971
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
I simply refuse to associate with folks of little or no moral fiber.
Originally Posted by porcia83
Sorry to hear that Astro, I'll cancel my flight. You're always welcome at my field. Can't think of a reason to not fly with someone based on a difference of opinion. That you take things so personally is disappointing.
NOT what I said (once again). No integrity is miles away from simple differences of opinions!

Astro
Old 11-30-2015, 09:08 AM
  #24  
Prop_Washer2
My Feedback: (26)
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

You can replace the word "Drone" in the polling question with the word "Helicopter"...now how does that work for you..??
Old 11-30-2015, 10:12 AM
  #25  
jester_s1
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 6,934
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

The question asks whether or not the AMA made a mistake doing something that they actually never did. So the question is not valid.
As for the greater drone situation, it was necessary for the AMA to embrace drones in some form for the good of RC as a whole. They are here whether you like it or not, and there is so much overlap between the two hobbies that the AMA would have been foolish not to get involved in it. The very best outcome for drones would be for the typical drone pilot to become an AMA member and abide by the safety guidelines established by the AMA. AMA was a bit too slow though, so drones have gone renegade. Now the AMA is in damage control mode trying to differentiate between responsible hobby use and unsafe practices. They are doing the best that can be done at this point in negotiations with the FAA task force. Somebody is going to suffer because of the knuckleheads out there, and AMA is playing the game to get its members excluded from that. That is how it should be, so I'll say they have made pretty smart decisions overall.

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.