astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

You totally lost me there? Which question and how does that address it?

Or that think they can pick and choose which rules to follow….

Astro

Hydro Junkie

Guys, what must be remembered is that the "drone" craze started for two simple reasons:

1. No airfield was required so it can be flown anywhere
2. The drones almost fly themselves so no real time investment is really needed

Both of these lend themselves to people that don't want to be involved in an organization or be forced into investing their time to learn something that does take time to learn. Most think of it as just a monetary expense and nothing more so, that being the case:

1. For the AMA to try to force/coerce membership to get those that fly drones under the AMA's safety program was nothing more than wishful thinking. Those that are going to fly drones safely will, the rest just don't care and will do as they wish
2. A majority of those that joined the "drone fad" did so because it was something they could do without a large investment in time or money. Money is something most had a decent amount of and a drone was just a toy to throw in the closet when they get bored with it before moving on to the next fad

init4fun

Hi Hydro,

Just so you know, I really enjoyed the pics of your boat and the link you posted, I didn't respond because while I have the utmost respect for all aspects of the remote control hobby, I really don't know a thing about the boats.

While the "Motorhead" in me finds the boats, and yes even the cars & trucks cool, airplanes have always been my thing

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Also, "droning" is not a hobby. Aerial photography/videography is. FPV is. Long distance, autonomous flight is too. Some of these are more or less related to aeromodelling, but are distinctly different in their own right and, as such, serve a different demographic with a need for different rules, governance and advocation.

Astro

init4fun

Yes indeed, I totally agree that while in some cases some of the equipment may be the same, the differences between "REAL"* LOS and the flying camera are great enough that that we should have never been lumped in with them.

* by real I mean the actual eyes of the pilot are seeing whats being flown, with no FPV equipment involved.

Hydro Junkie

And that's okay. I have watched the boats since the mid to late 1960s, grew up around water and boats, spent time in the Navy so, for me, it's just part of life to be around water.
As far as planes, I work in aviation so aircraft have no real mystery about them for me. Same goes with cars and buggies, been working on them since I was 3, so no mystery there either.
Boats, on the other hand, are a challenge.

• You can't just run an engine on the stand and say it's good because it's not properly loaded.
• You can't compare it to a similarly sized aircraft engine as that can be bench run with an appropriate prop
• With my CMB .67, it's a front exhaust design with the carb mounted to the back plate.
• A comparable OS 65AX ABL is a side exhaust with a front carb
• My CMB spins, no load, at 28K with a 57-60mm prop
• The OS spins at no more than maybe 10K with a 12-14" prop
• Due to loading differences, the OS runs at a much leaner setting than the CMB but, at the same time, you can't just tip the boat up on its transom to see if you are too lean

As you can see there's a lot going on that is different from the aircraft and that's where the challenge lies

ECHO24

Here is the decision in RaceDayQuads' lawsuit against the FAA and Remote ID. As could be predicted by Jonathan Rupprecht's no-link post,
they lost on every point. Specifically, there is no expectation of privacy while flying in public. RDQ's other claims against the FAA were also
brushed aside, further cementing the FAA's authority over RC flying.
https://www.suasnews.com/2022/07/rac...eid=0c805b84d1

Thanks to the droniacs and AMA things look pretty grim for the model aircraft hobby once fully enforced (bold text in ruling):

"Broadcast Module drones are those built before September 16, 2022, without Remote ID capacity, which are retrofitted with a module to enable
that capacity in compliance with the Rule; once modified, they may only be flown within the operator’s line of sight. Unidentified drones without
any Remote ID capability may only fly within the drone pilot’s sight within FAA-recognized identification areas, or ID Areas—specific
geographic areas set aside by the FAA for recreational or educational drone flight. Community-based organizations and educational
institutions, including primary and secondary schools, trade schools, colleges, and universities, may apply to the FAA for ID-Area status."

The droniacs won't fare much better once people get wise to the phone app and start turning them in every time they fly.

ECHO24

The RDQ vs. FAA decision simply restates the various laws Congress passed on Remote ID, so Jonathan Rupprecht had no real expectation of winning. He is a
commercial drone lawyer and this was primarily a hobby drone lawsuit. The only point of hobby/commercial convergence in the lawsuit was that Remote ID posed
a threat in revealing an operator's location, to which the court basically said, "tough luck, that has no bearing on the law". Now in addition to the scary emails he
sends out about the various dangers of noncompliance Rupprecht can add Remote ID - and offer his services to help operators to comply! All the while boasting
about standing up to the man (paid for by RDQ's GoFundMe campaign).

So it was all a sham, just to gain street cred in the drone community. Unfortunately, this is what the model aircraft hobby has been dragged into.

If you want more punishment and a look into the future of the hobby here is a livestream of the oral arguments back in December 2021:

Hydro Junkie

I know I suggested this a while back but it wasn't really accepted well. I just got a link to the latest Propwash(the NAMBA newsletter) and figured I'd throw it out there as a way for the AMA to save some money over their present magazine that is costing them seven figures each year. Here's the link to it, that is if anyone's interested in seeing how another organization gets its information out to the members economically:
NAMBA Propwash Web October 2022.pub

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Very nicely done, more like a newsletter and very much the same as the NSRCA puts out. In fact most AMA clubs put out a newsletter in the same type of format just not as much length.

While I am not particularly fond of Model Aviation magazine myself, I find the content too basic and they don’t do detailed contest reports that they once did. It was encouraging to see more advertising coming back in the latest issue. Of course advertising is revenue.

rcmiket

Wow very nice. My conversations back and forth with the current administration along with a questioning the individuals running for office about cutting cost left me with the feeling that they just don't care about it. In my humble opinion we need a 3rd party to come in and take a good hard look at our organization and ways to cut costs rather than burdening the membership with dues increases, when every one of us is suffering the effects of run away inflation. Many of it's members are on fixed incomes and I'm afraid this latest move will cost us members that we can afford to lose.
Mike

Hydro Junkie

Speed, it is a newsletter, normally accessed by a link on the NAMBA homepage. We do get a hard copy once a year that is mailed out with rules updates before club activities really get started. The important part is that it's basically free, other than the one hard copy, to both the members and the organization. The secretary takes the information sent in, arranges it and puts it on the website. It's one of his duties, along with handling membership, event sanctioning, insurance issues and such. Granted, NAMBA doesn't have near the membership of the AMA but, when you look at the fact that one person does all of that and then some, it kind of shows how poorly the AMA office staff is actually doing.

Mike, you know that will never happen. To have an outside organization come in and "audit" the AMA's office staff and processes would show just how much of a waste of time, money and space they actually have, not to mention the fact that it might even expose a bit of corruption as well. Personally, I think it would be a good idea but, as we all know, a certain person(or two) would never allow it since it might cost them their job(s)

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Hydro, again very much like what the NSRCA does. Membership in NSRCA is $40. To compare your boat organization to AMA IMO would require an inside view of the workings of AMA which neither of us have. For one your organization is not required to deal with the Federal government. As of right now AMA is handling every FRIA application. I would imagine that would mean 2,000 plus applications.

Hydro Junkie

I think my dues are a bit higher, not enough to complain about
For an totally accurate comparison, I would agree totally. In a general sense, however, having one person basically do the same kinds of work, if not more so and doing it for reimbursal of his costs, as 10+ paid administrators in the AMA office has to say a lot.
True, but we do have to deal with state and local governments, parks departments and private land owners, just like the AMA and AMA affiliated clubs
You're probably right on that one though, truth be told, what kind of processing are they doing? Again, since we don't know how the FAA is dealing with the FRIA situation, we don't know what kinds of forms have to be filled out or supporting documents that are required

rcmiket

From what I understand about the FRIA applications it might be up to the individual clubs to file the paperwork. The AMA has stated they would be of assistance as far as filing the necessary paperwork. None of that is for sure yet. I can say that as far a the National Ass. of Rocketry , FAA waivers for hi powered rocketry are handled by the individual Chartered Clubs. NAR does offer guidance as far as filing for a waiver. It's no big deal as I handle our clubs waiver and have found the FAA to be more than helpful and always friendly and professional with the process.

Mike

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

The AMA is applying for ALL club FRIA's on behalf of the clubs.

We do NOT want individual clubs applying for FRIA status, they (the FAA) has stated specifically that they want it to come from the CBO so they can deal with one point of contact.

rcmiket

Says who? Last I heard was they were clueless as far as the process. Is this another well kept secret from the membership?

Posted on the AMA website on 9/9/22

"AMA is expecting the FAA to release Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57C and open an online portal to apply for FRIA (FAA-recognized identification area) status very soon. AMA is asking all of our clubs to standby while we review the AC and FRIA process and wait for instructions on next steps. Our hope is to apply for FRIA status on behalf of each of our clubs that are interested in having this designation. It is likely that AMA and FAA will have to take care of some administrative processes before AMA clubs can request FRIA status. Rest assured, AMA will assist all interested clubs in applying for FRIA status. Remember, the deadline for operators to comply with Remote ID requirements is not until September 16, 2023."

Pretty much says "we don't know yet".................

Mike

ECHO24

Fair enough. So what's your take on AMA spending money on drones and FPV that have nothing to do with RC model aircraft?. Drones taking videos of RC aircraft at AMA fields are exempt already and therefore it requires no money spent on lobbying or advertising. Can't use that excuse. So what is it about AMA that they would commit suicide for the model aircraft hobby on behalf of drones and FPV? Enlighten us.

scale only 4 me

My Feedback: (158)

Andy,
Some official update on this sure would be nice,,, I thought this was going to be the case,, can't remember where I read that,, but I too as a Club Officer have been unsure what we as a Club needed to do if anything,

Maybe it's time for a clarifying email from Headquarters,,

Thanks

rcmiket

Updates are sent I posted the last update a few posts back. What Andy is saying isn't in that update.

Mike

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Last week I attended two separate club’s meetings, at both meetings FRIA applications were addressed and the club officers clearly stated that the applications were being handled by the AMA and urged club members to not take it upon themselves to contact the FAA about concerns over FRIA applications. It would appear that the information is available.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Education. Being an AMA member comes with a certain amount of safety education. If the FAA had decided that CBO membership was required for all UAS pilots then we might have been able to cover all of UAS with the safety record. Maybe just maybe congress might have taken a different direction.

rcmiket

Just how did both those clubs have this information? Even the AMA has stated they don't know how this will work. As a club officer along with being a leader member I have not been informed of anything as far as how the process will be handled. Of course members should not take any action on behalf of a club, that would be handled by the club officers.
Way too much misinformation and speculation floating around on this.I'm sure the FAA will post just how and who will handle this in the near future. There's even a notice on the FAA Drone Zone site about FRIA and checking back on that site in the near future.

Mike

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

We (the AMA) is in constant contact with the FAA. Communication is prepared but we need 91-57C to drop to get the final instructions but the intent has been for the AMA HQ to handle the FRIA applications, not for individual clubs.

As soon as we get the final word from the FAA it will go out to the clubs, officers, LM's etc that are subscribed to the emails, and posted on social media.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I would have to assume they were proactive and called AMA.