With the electronics today, it shouldn't be much a problem to have audio telemetry, with either or both a tone or even a voice stating the altitude of the aircraft from the transmitter. It could even be a separate receiver held by the pilot or assistant.

Taranis can do it quite easily:
- x9D+ radio telemetry ($244 at Amazon)
- X8R Receiver, 16.6 grams weight ($35 at Amazon)
- FrSky GPS unit, 11.3 grams weight ($42 at Amazon)

GPS altitude part of telemetry feed to radio. Easy to program Taranis to provide audio (beeps or *.wav files) as well as vibration

My son received a Taranis X9D for Christmas, thanks Santa. I believe I will be placing all of my future planes on it (60 model memory), it is quite the radio as I'm learning some of the amazing things it can do. I have been broken in on 4 and 6 channel Futaba's with minimal programming capabilities and this Taranis is in a different league.

Franklin, thanks for the recipe to accomplish the audio telemetry I desire.

I now feel confident I will be able to abide by the 400 foot ceiling.

How cool! I also got one for Christmas, and you're right, it's pretty daunting to learn, but HIGHLY capable. A trusted friend has one, and he strongly recommended it. In fact, of the programming, he said "there's multiple ways to achieve the same thing" which is nice. Plus, you can't beat the "cost per channel" of them. I compared Spektrum at between $40 per channel (DX8) to $60 per channel (DX20) vs. Taranis at about $17 per channel ($280/16).

I've updated my sound files already to a slighly less computer sounding female voice (from my test flight days, science shows that female voice warnings produce higher response rate, in both men AND women).

In fact today I just bought a GPS unit and LiPo voltage sensor for telementry for a low end HobbyPower S500 MR. I've been trying to kludge together native telemetry out of an ancient APM 2.8 module. It's possible, but requires some homebrew electronics interface for the APM. I don't need it all and I'm going for a more simple approach w/ the FrSky GPS and Lipo. My next MR will have PixHawk, which can output native telemetry (GPS and other info) to FrSky w/o additional equipment. I'll put the GPS into other planes and helis as I need them.

Rather than equipping all of my models with altimeter or GPS telemetry, all one really requires, imho, is one model so equipped. Get a feel for where 400 feet is with such a model and then from there you can develop a mental point of reference.

Another thing to keep in mind, and mind you I am not and would not ever advocate intentionally breaking the rules, but... If you did an occasional flight that technically broke the 400 foot ceiling, say a loop that took you to 410 feet momentarily while you were diligently trying to be aware of staying withing the limits, no one is going to slap handcuffs on you because of it. For what I fly (helis and mainly park flyers) 400 feet is a good ways up and even before the new regulations I doubt I ever really flew above 400 feet. Just be reasonable and do your best to obey the limits and I think you will be fine.

Jim

As opposed to my jets where they are breaking 400 feet before the gear is done retracting.

I'll be interested in hearing your experiences and impressions with it. My main concern is the quality of the electronics and basic build of the thing. i.e. how do the solder joints look?

I see a new radio in the not too distant future capable of handling 4 temp sensors at once. And while I've been a fan of both Futaba and Spektrum, prices have become ridiculous.

I don't buy that for an instant in Canada we have an office called Corporate Canada who's only job is to monitor and enforce laws re the operation of corporations in Canada I would think the US has something quite similar. Simply file a complaint if you think they are corrupt. Talk and accusations without proof or action is nothing more than a cheap shot by a few dissatisfied members/ex-members.

How many members on this forum? Less than a two dozen reply or add to Franky's posts/topics, how many are actually AMA members, how many who post/answer hold an opposing view? Actually pretty insignificant when you think of it. Shows how little support for his hue and cry about his pet peeve the AMA. Makes one wonder what happened to originally put his knickers in a knot. LOL



Dennis

I do understand that there are facets of the hobby where 400 feet is an issue. I guess my main point is that there are ways to become aware of what 400 feet looks like approximately with respect the the aircraft that you might be flying and that being absolutely exact about breaking that ceiling is not really necessary. I do hope that there can be some negotiated exceptions to the 400 foot rule for those who require more altitude. Though I have never done it I think that sailplanes and slope soaring would interesting to try, these also require a higher altitude limit.

Jim

Then for your sake, let's hope the AMA has as much "influence" as they've been saying they have. Heretofor it hasn't been enough to stop the repeal of 336, but perhaps it's strong enough to overcome an explicit provision of law.

And of course that any expections sought don't meet resistance from others that use the same airspace.

When I take the back off, I'll shoot some photos. Will probably be a month or so, have to do some business traveling so hobby stuff is on hold for a few weeks. So far, I'm really impressed. Love the wide open programming. No more of the "you can do it any way you want, as long as it's the way we want you to do it" programming from Spektrum / Futaba. And none of the silly wifi / network / internet stuff. To me that's just bells and whistle marketing gimmics.

Big picture though, all the stuff today is likely manufactured in China ... it wouldn't surprise me if they're both made in the same plant on separate lines.

The closest thing we have is an organization known as the "Better Business Bureau. This is not an organization that has any legal clout or teeth.
You noted that very few people haunt the AMA forum. There is a very simple reason for this:
MOST AMA MEMBERS ARE ONLY MEMBERS BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm going to make this very simple for you:
1) Franklin has posted information that the AMA itself released
2) The AMA has put out information through emails to members that directly conflicts with information put out by the FAA and Congress. Since the AMA is fighting to keep itself relevant, what should we believe? Better question yet is who has the teeth to back up what they have said? Since the AMA is nothing more than a secondary insurance brokerage these days that is also fighting to get more members to keep feeding them money for pet projects the executive committee wants, you can't trust them

Now, with that said, prove us wrong from the north side of the 49th parallel

NAAAAA yer funnin or really don't have a clue. A quick google on corporate oversight shows in the US by both federal and state entities while in Canada ours is federal only.<br /><br /> Again NAAAA I've spent a fair amount of time every year traveling through the US as pilot and adviser for the local university team competing in the SAE Aerodesign competition. I make a two to three week vacation and fly at as many AMA fields as I can find to and from the competitions. I cannot remember ever meeting anyone as so bound up as you few guys on this forum. Everyone I met and talked with had no comments or views like the ones expressed here. Everyone I met expressed they were an AMA club and AMA members which I detected no bitterness. I asked and received permission to fly at every club I visited.<br /><br />Are you even a member of the AMA??????<br /><br />In Canada Transport Canada put regulations in place that governs all remote piloted vehicles no mater recreational or not. The same as the FAA with an altitude limit and a limit to proximity to airfields. However exemtions for MAAC members at MAAC fields are being negotiated and we are told should be in place before the actual regulations come into effect. It was done this way to curb those who had no intention to fly by any common sense yet allow those who flew within the safety guidelines of the recognized CBO in this case MAAC at sanctioned fields the ability to fly as they always have.<br /><br />I imagine the FAA has the same ability to grant exemptions and it sounds like the AMA is working towards that end. Some of our members have attended sanctioned events in the US where altitudes well over 400 ft are common without any problem with more in the future. Glider events AMA private events such as Top Gun etc. If the intent of the FAA were to cripple the AMA over safely flying at their fields over the 400 ft ceiling there would be a specific cease and desist order by now.<br /><br />You are simply parroting Franklin have you no reasoning power of your own?

Believe what you want but, since you don't have to deal with the AMA or FAA, you don't have a clue as to anything happening on my side of the border. The facts speak for themselves and if you don't want to believe them, that's on you.

Ah since I do fly on US soil, at AMA clubs under the reciprocal agreement I have to be very aware and follow the AMA guidelines or my insurance would not be valid. As any AMA members flying in Canada would have to be aware and follow the guidelines as they exist in Canada.

Part 107 Waivers take a look at the last one on the chart. There is a procedure to apply for a waiver to the 100 mph and 400 ft ceiling. Thus as the AMA has been saying they are working on it and I imagine it would be for AMA members only operating on AMA fields. The rest would have to operate under the 100 mph and 400 ft levels.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_o...t_107_waivers/

Again I ask are you even an AMA member or just a hater.

By the way my FAA registration number I have had since the beginning how about you do you have yours??????
Dennis

I don't see anything there about it being for recreational flying. In fact, even the URL has Commercial in it and it was linked from a section titled,

"Certificated Remote Pilots including Commercial Operators"

. Or do you plan to mix and match various parts to get the rules you want? Like a Smorgasbord!

<br /><br />Again first off are you a member of the AMA or just a hater.<br /><br />Second have you registered with the FAA????? <br /><br />Third you missed the point entirely so let me explain it slowly for you. The........chart.........as........an..........exa mple..........clearly............shows............ the........FAA.......... can.........issue...........waivers. From..........listening...........to..........what ..........the...........AMA...........have........ ...been...........saying...........I.........get.. ........the...........idea..........this........is .......the .........path........they.......are........taking. .........which..........would..........be......... .similar...........to..........what.........is.... ......happening..........in........Canada.<br />

​​​​​​That would leave you if not an AMA member flying at an AMA field stuck under the original rule without the waiver. Perhaps this is what is driving your hate for the AMA?????

You assume that anyone who disagrees with how the AMA runs their operation is a hater. I don`t hate the AMA. I don`t hate anybody. If you read the whole thread you would see at least one example where the AMA is losing money. As a paying member I feel it is my prerogative to be able to criticize this. You sound like speedracerandtrixie in that if anyone doesn't like what the AMA is doing with our money than we should just quit the hobby and go away. No, I won`t.

Stickslammer , I agree 100% that these two of Franklin's charts should be cause for concern for all AMA members . Income down , Internal expenses up , at what point do the means no longer provide for the ends ?

Not at all every member is a stake holder (one vote). There are many ways to have your opinions/views brought to light for consideration. It takes more than *****ing on a forum with only a couple dozen participants to make change.

A majority would do it but someone is going to have to put in the effort to mobilize this majority and again this forum is not going to do it.



Hydro Junkie would have us believe the Better Business Bureau is the only recourse if the Directors have shirked their fiduciary duties. There are laws as well as avenues to file a complaint however one must identify ones self which might leave one open to repercussions especially if found to be false or frivolous.



If your not happy do something moaning and pulling your hair isn’t going to cut it.

I only addressed the FAA issue and was told it didn’t apply to me. Wrong I do fly in the US and I have registered as required by the FAA. I asked Junkie if he is a member of his parent organization and if he has registered with the FAA which I believe is a requirement even if you’re not an AMA member. If not then I am more in compliance with your laws than he is and if he intends to fly he needs to at least do that.



The only thing that concerns me as far as the AMA is the ability for me as a visitor to fly as I always have when at AMA fields. The financials of the AMA don’t interest me in the slightest. My MAAC insurance covers me for 7.5 million first party liabilities when in the US providing I follow AMA safety guidelines.

The communication I have had with the AMA have indicated I can fly as I always have as long as I am at an AMA field and fly according to the AMA safety guidelines. This is exactly what we have in Canada we call it a carve out for MAAC members at MAAC fields. Looking on the FAA site they can authorise a waiver. To me it looks like that is what is being negotiated between the AMA and the FAA. It would make the most sense to protect its membership and let the non members fly under the restrictions minus the waiver.

I'll not respond to your questions because you have obviously made up your mind. However, when you fly in the United States, you do so as a guest! I would suggest you act like one and understand, it is not polite to tell a host how to conduct their business. Or is that your brand of HATE?

I would not presume to tell anyone especially the AMA how to run their business.



I thought you might not know how to enact change within an organization so I gave you my views from experiences I have had when I needed to enact changes within my own organization.



Your thoughts on the Better Business Bureau being the correct office to direct concerns you had on how the AMA officers were fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities led me to believe you were ignorant of the correct places you might direct those concerns.



Your refusal to the questions are you an AMA member and have you registered with the FAA are your business of course. However if your not a member of the AMA (stakeholder) (shareholder) you have no place to question the directors on whether they are fulfilling those duties. If you’re not registered with the FAA you are not in compliance and technically shouldn’t be flying anyways.



As far as flying as a guest in your country I can say with certainty I have been welcomed every place I have been. I have reciprocated in kind to any visitors from your country that I have had the pleasure to have contact with.

You would also be welcome to fly at my club providing of course you could show documentation that you were a member in good standing with the AMA.

Really I was not aware the rest of the posters were not AMA members. Could be one of the reasons they get no response if and when they contact the AMA. They could also be pizzed that if the AMA negotiates a waiver for members/clubs only they will be left having to fly with the restrictions.

The same type of rules came down from Transport Canada. Height limit, speed, distance from buildings, people and airports. Then MAAC negotiated an exemption or carve out for its membership as long as we flew at registered fields and followed the safety guidelines. Those who were not members were up in arms when they found out they would have to fly by the Transport Canada rules while MAAC members did not. They accused MAAC of everything from corruption to favoritism and of course turning their back on the hobby in general. It didn’t matter that they had no intention to join MAAC or follow any safety guidelines nor contribute any funds towards the negotiation process. They just expected MAAC and its membership to suck it up and negotiate on behalf of all modelers. I for one am very glad it did not happen.