porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Must have missed the pic, or I'm not following.

It's not a zero sum position is it.....a defender or detractor? Given the overwhelming position folks on here have on the AMA, at what point do dissenting voices, or those that present a different view chime in? Nobody is going to change their mind or their position, and it seems difficult to have a discussion that isn't all or nothing. At the end of the day, the AMA is the only one around doing what they do, and have been doing so for 80 years. I find it ludicrous to see people say they have thrown all 80 years of advocacy for ALL members away for one still small (but growing) means of flying. Keep in mind, all of the folks on the EC are certainly what would be called "traditional modelers", all in the hobby for decades and decades.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

If that's not good news, perhaps this is. If we are to take everything we see in the media at face value, then here we have another view...that membership is growing. Yet another example of the AMA getting their message out.

http://www.popsci.com/big-fight-over-little-airplanes

TimJ

If your club maintained good public P.R. and good relationship with officals, in most cases your club has nothingredients to worry about.

Sport_Pilot

The vote did not pass this into law. As it said it now goes to the House for reconciliation of amendments.

2walla

My Feedback: (10)

How many of the guys complaining about drones are the same guys that uncontrallably rocket their trainer 40 through the pits, but complain amout how unsafe the 3d guy that never crashes is?? While we are on that. Drones are what are govenment uses to kill people in foreign countries that they suspect may be terrorists without trial or due process. But that is a topic for another day... Most of the activity at my club field is fpv quadcopters. Planes are on a sharp decline. Its the way things are going. Lat year at a benefit event i was at i had an fpv slow stick, and my race quad. I had 20 kids fixated on my tv set i had mirroring the live feed as I simply flew around. The 10k turbine jets and the warbirds with moki radials didnt even get a second glance... This tells me that model aviation as we know it is dying. A bunch of old farts toying with small miniature planes just is not appealing to the younger crowd.. AMA actually sees this and is doing the right thing by embracing the quadcopter guys. Its the only aspect of the hobby that is growing.

bokuda

My Feedback: (7)

Wishful thinking? Don't see this in the actual bill. If only it were true...

Sport_Pilot

It is true. Do a word search if you cannot find it.

bokuda

My Feedback: (7)

Sorry to say it is not there. It is quoted on a number of R/C sites but it is not in the actual bill. Here is the link to the latest version of the bill I could find, dated April 4. The sections end at section "g;" there is no section "h." I really hope there is a later version that includes this, but I'm not optimistic. This is just too good to be true. Please show me this is wrong! Please! it looks like something that we all agree SHOULD be added, but sadly is not there.

Is there a later version? I can't locate one.

http://www.commerce.senate.gov/publi...t---4.4.16.pdf

bokuda

My Feedback: (7)

Here's a version dated 4-19. Still not there...

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr636/text

RichardGee

My Feedback: (156)

I have the latest version of SB 2658 and there is NO sub-section (h) in SEC. 2124. It ends at (g). This "exclusion" does NOT exist in the bill.
There is similar wording in another portion of the bill, but it includes the words "...capable of navigation WITHIN or beyond the visual line of sight..." - which obviously includes our model aircraft.
I have been reading this bill backwards and forwards now for 3 days. Although I am no lawyer, and in spite of Sen. Inhofe's amendment 3596, IF the FAA enforces this monstrosity, WE ARE TOTALLY SCREWED FOLKS!
Thank you Big Brother.
NO thank you AMA.

Sport_Pilot

This is in the amendments to the bill, the bill will not actually be changed yet. See the link in post #29.

bokuda

My Feedback: (7)

I'm selectively blind, I can no longer read or it has been eliminated or...? It's not there.

I'm truly hoping you are right and that amendment will be adopted.

Sport_Pilot

In your browser click on Edit: Find on this page. Then do a word search for "(h) Exclusions".

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Not encouraging, but I haven't been able to find Inhofe's amendment in the bill that was signed, either. I'm sure I'll be duly informed that "it is there", but that's okay....
I'm sure I just have some horrific reading impairment, too....

But I don't see it.
And going back to committee ain't gonna get anything else inserted - that's not how it works. On this "reconciliation by committee" phase, the committee reviews and discusses what has been SIGNED and voted upon....that's it!

Sport_Pilot

If you are talking about the reconciliation between the House and Senate bill then there is a lot more to it than just what was signed and voted on. They have to merge two different bills and they must put one version or the other in the bill, or go back and get new versions. They may have authority to write a new version, but not sure about that.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

See my signature.

RichardGee

My Feedback: (156)

Sen. Inhofe's amendment (3596) is not in SB 2658 (Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016). Inhofe's amendment still must be voted up or down which is why the AMA is urging all members to WRITE their Senator and urge a YES vote on 3596. SB 2658 was already voted on and PASSED by the Senate and now goes to the House. Their goal is to have the bill LAW by July. Inhofe's amendment will help we RC hobbyists, but it does NOT alleviate all of the FAA scrutiny, and as far as I can tell, does NOTHING to relieve the RC hobby industry of onerous FAA regulations that will destroy the industry.

Sport_Pilot

Good point,. You are now on ignore.

Sport_Pilot

So what of 3679? I think I might like it better than 3596.

cj_rumley

RG-

It appears that Inhofe's amendment was included in the SB. AMA has ended the letters-to-Congress 'program.' Some conditions/banned activities affecting all modelers are now allowed under AMA control, examples include flying above 400' allowed for members in AMA events as specified by AMA, and the operator testing requirement is still there but now (per the SB) administered by AMA. AMA got what they wanted, did you?

RichardGee

My Feedback: (156)

Can you cite the language that supersedes the "400 foot ceiling" requirement? I would like to see it. Also, is there any language that exempts the hobby industry from the onerous regulations proposed under SB 2658? If there is, I can't find it. The exemptions for "model aircraft" are one thing, but unless they exempt the hobby manufacturers as well, the industry will be put out of business, just as government regulations have been doing to private industry for a century. NO, I am not satisfied at all that the AMA or Inhofe's amendment offer sufficient protections for fixed and rotary wing aircraft flown at AMA sanctioned fields and events. Please point me in the direction of documentation that ameliorates my concerns ?

Sport_Pilot

Can you not do a word search of 3679?

https://www.congress.gov/amendment/1...ment/3679/text


``(6) the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more
than 400 feet in altitude, except under special conditions
and programs established by a community-based organization;

RichardGee

My Feedback: (156)

Sport, 3679 is 500 pages and 93,000 words. There are 104 amendments to amendment 3679. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY FOR ANY SANE ADULT to wade through the morass of legalese BS and find, let alone remain on path to following the law… Yes, I can use word search and yes I can see the verbiage to which you refer. Can you determine if this verbiage supersedes all other language in this document and 2658 or the 104 amendments that make up thousands of pages and hundreds of thousands of words? I can’t.

I challenge anyone interested in this topic to go and try to read through the mountains of documents I have referenced, then come away with ANY sense of what are the rules now for traditional RC hobbyists?

NONE of this would be happening except that we were thrown in with the non-traditional RC craft that have caused the FAA to take notice.

Sport_Pilot

You keep blaming the AMA but this has been the case since 2009. Nobody was complaining then.

Sprucedeuce

Xenophobic bigotry is an insult to people who are just upset and now a little frightened and definitely frustrated at what is being done to them. Many of us ,myself included were asking the AMA years ago to create a separate category for the camera platforms. Welcome them in certainly but don't act like what they are doing has any resemblance to the thousands of us who engineer, construct, finish, install, test and then fly or in some cases begin learning how to accelerate down a runway and into the sky and back down again in a controllable manner. Because there is most certainly a difference between that and taking something out of a box charging its battery and immediately being able to successfully operate it since it has gyro stabilizers on every axis. I am above getting offended by people claiming I just need to get hip to the timescuz this is the future man! Well it's not, Multirotors arte enjoying what is most certainly their peak in interest, After the next couple of years I believe that you will see fewer and fewer of them as the (I gotta have one too) syndrome wears off and they get knocked from their spot as the (I gotta have it for Christ mass or I won't love you any more) gift. Most are cheap, they break they get tossed people lose interest, you get the picture. as a matter of fact I believe this is the very reason that the FAA is rushing so fast to clamp down because soon all the hoopla will disapear