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

What Does the Future Hold?

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

What Does the Future Hold?

Old 07-01-2019, 05:02 AM
  #26  
jester_s1
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 7,266
Received 35 Likes on 30 Posts
Default

What I find so disconcerting is that society in general takes the attitude that nothing bad should ever happen. That's what our politicians promise- to regulate and supervise to prevent any bad occurrences. I grew up understanding that accidents will happen, and there will always be idiots, and that's part of life and living in a free country. From what I can see, flying FPV near airports is the real issue. I recall seeing a prototype drone a couple of years ago that could shoot out a net to take down an RC model if it was in restricted airspace. So why isn't that tech being developed and deployed near airports where the problem actually is? That way, the FAA could not worry about what people are doing in safe places and keep pilots and their equipment safe at the same time.
Old 07-01-2019, 06:01 AM
  #27  
Appowner
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,016
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jester_s1
What I find so disconcerting is that society in general takes the attitude that nothing bad should ever happen. That's what our politicians promise- to regulate and supervise to prevent any bad occurrences. I grew up understanding that accidents will happen, and there will always be idiots, and that's part of life and living in a free country. From what I can see, flying FPV near airports is the real issue. I recall seeing a prototype drone a couple of years ago that could shoot out a net to take down an RC model if it was in restricted airspace. So why isn't that tech being developed and deployed near airports where the problem actually is? That way, the FAA could not worry about what people are doing in safe places and keep pilots and their equipment safe at the same time.
People seem to expect a Poly Anna world anymore. Just look at the news and see how shocked people are when someone dies. Accidental or not. The realities of life are lost on most. The cries of "I'm offended by that!" shows the weakness of the nation. Never before has the phrase "Pray for Peace but prepare for War" held so much meaning.

Many of you slept comfortably at night while me and many like me were prepared to do violence on your behalf. It's not a nice world out there and I'm sorry if you think I should be kinder, gentler and more polite. But I find some people simply routinely ignore the subtle comments to their actions and need to be told in no uncertain terms what they're doing wrong. I will play the game and report to the mods. But when the mods do nothing, I will step up and defend myself. And I rarely take prisoners.
Old 07-01-2019, 07:39 PM
  #28  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,489
Received 172 Likes on 148 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Appowner
There's been the opinion in GA for years that the FAA is trying to push them out of the skies. I first heard it in the 1960's. The GA manufacturers use to build "trainers". But when the courts started to make them pay for the idiot students who killed themselves, Piper, Cessna, etc quit building planes designated and in some cases designed as trainers.

Once we're fully under the management of the FAA and some idiot manages to kill someone with their toy airplane, the Fat Lady will Sing.
I don't think that comparing GA with R/C aviation is an apples to apples example. If we were to look at the past 50 years I'm betting there have been hundreds of deaths and millions in property damage due to GA. R/C mignt have 6-8 deaths in the same time frame. Granted with the popularity of quads the risk goes from a model hitting a single or maybe a couple people to bringing down an airliner with 100 plus on board. That is were the FAA should be focusing their efforts. In fact it would appear that is exactly what the FAA iS doing. A great example of this is most fixed sites are hosting events without FAA interference.
Old 07-03-2019, 06:32 PM
  #29  
Appowner
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,016
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie


I don't think that comparing GA with R/C aviation is an apples to apples example. If we were to look at the past 50 years I'm betting there have been hundreds of deaths and millions in property damage due to GA. R/C mignt have 6-8 deaths in the same time frame. Granted with the popularity of quads the risk goes from a model hitting a single or maybe a couple people to bringing down an airliner with 100 plus on board. That is were the FAA should be focusing their efforts. In fact it would appear that is exactly what the FAA iS doing. A great example of this is most fixed sites are hosting events without FAA interference.
And I'm willing to bet there have been millions upon millions of more flight hours by GA than RC during the same time period. And let us not forget that not all GA flights are in the perfect weather most of us wait for to fly RC. Now if an RC pilot were to die anytime his toy were to crash.................................

No, it's not apples to apples. As the GA apples have real lives tied to the seats. While the RC pilot walks away from every crash. And the FAA would like to see to it that everyone continues to walk away from an RC crash. Including GA!
Old 07-05-2019, 08:56 AM
  #30  
Stickslammer
 
Stickslammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Let`s hope there is never a downing of a civilian or military aircraft that is attributable to R/C. With the deep pockets litigation, the R/C industry will take a huge hit. I`m convinced that's what is largely responsible for the decline in the G/A industry.
Old 07-05-2019, 12:25 PM
  #31  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,489
Received 172 Likes on 148 Posts
Default

I have a feeling you are right. I think we can use GA as a good example here of what can happen if the idiots with quadcopters aren't regulated. It's unfortunate that we are caught in that crossfire. To be honest and this is more a gut feeling combined with what I see is that recreational multi Rotor use is down. The MR racing seems to have taken off and is gaining popularity but those are low level flights. The use of MR aircraft in media production is up but those fall under part 107. Fixed wing FPV seems to be on the rise. Us humans are a funny lot, we continually look for challenges. If something does not challenge us for the most part we move to something else. Look at all the forms of competition within our society. Even our entertainment is full of competition. Look at how some of the conversations here on RCU get out of hand, some guys don't have their competitive needs met elsewhere so they bring it here. Bottom line is that for most people automated flight and assisted flight is boring. That's why right now we see guys being stupid and flying farther and higher, that's where their excitement is. Before long that will wear off and 75% of the guys will move onto something else. That is what keeps guys like me interested in R/C LOS flight, the constant challenge.

What does the future hold? We will be allowed to continue what we are doing now but with regulation. We will have to register, we will have to take a test, we will have to get fixed sites waivered. Places like Muncie in class G airspace will have to get waivers for specific events. The LSF ( special interest group for R/C soaring ) is doing that right now for the soaring Nats. This will become the new norm, LOS will survive, it will be just a bit more work.
Old 07-05-2019, 02:17 PM
  #32  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,341
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

I'm in agreement with Speedracer that when multicopters first hit the mass market they became the "Latest & greatest new fad toy" , and once the shine finally wears off for the casually interested but non committed they will be off ogling the latest vape pen or whatever the new trinket of the week is . Once enough of them and the "hold my beer & watch this !" crowd moves on we'll still be flying , albeit with the restrictions their threadcrapping in our hobby will have wrought . But flying we still will be , and as the yahoos move on I do believe the MR crew itself will become comprised more and more of the dedicated type of which Speed speaks .

One can only hope
Old 07-05-2019, 02:50 PM
  #33  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,517
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie


I don't think that comparing GA with R/C aviation is an apples to apples example. If we were to look at the past 50 years I'm betting there have been hundreds of deaths and millions in property damage due to GA. R/C mignt have 6-8 deaths in the same time frame. Granted with the popularity of quads the risk goes from a model hitting a single or maybe a couple people to bringing down an airliner with 100 plus on board. That is were the FAA should be focusing their efforts. In fact it would appear that is exactly what the FAA iS doing. A great example of this is most fixed sites are hosting events without FAA interference.
Actually, it's closer to "apples to apples" than many want to believe. If you compare the amount of plane crashes in R/C to the number in GA, I think you would find there is a substantial gap and that hundreds of R/C planes crash each year for every GA plane that crashes. The reason no one looks at it in that regard is no one is killed when an R/C crashes and, since there are no records kept about the number of R/C crashes there are each year, we don't know how many people would have died had there been people in those R/C planes when they crashed. Now, let's take this one step further. Speed crashed 6 planes last year, Jester crashed 4 and I crashed one. Why they crashed isn't important, nor is the amount of flights each of us has taken over that year, but how would the FAA respond? Would they pull every one's license, Speed's license or no ones license? Would they require everyone to have a slight log to document our flight hours in, knowing some would falsify their book just to look good? It would be interesting to see how the FAA reacts to those kind of records, wouldn't it?

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 07-05-2019 at 02:54 PM.
Old 07-05-2019, 04:06 PM
  #34  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,341
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie
Actually, it's closer to "apples to apples" than many want to believe. If you compare the amount of plane crashes in R/C to the number in GA, I think you would find there is a substantial gap and that hundreds of R/C planes crash each year for every GA plane that crashes. The reason no one looks at it in that regard is no one is killed when an R/C crashes and, since there are no records kept about the number of R/C crashes there are each year, we don't know how many people would have died had there been people in those R/C planes when they crashed. Now, let's take this one step further. Speed crashed 6 planes last year, Jester crashed 4 and I crashed one. Why they crashed isn't important, nor is the amount of flights each of us has taken over that year, but how would the FAA respond? Would they pull every one's license, Speed's license or no ones license? Would they require everyone to have a slight log to document our flight hours in, knowing some would falsify their book just to look good? It would be interesting to see how the FAA reacts to those kind of records, wouldn't it?
With all due respect my friend , In my opinion your kinda reaching here .

Since no one will ever die occupying an RC model airplane , and thankfully so far it's been very small numbers of people who have ever died by being hit by one , the MA / GA comparison will never be "apples to apples" , anymore than model railroad derailments will ever equal actual train derailments which have killed thousands over the years . Over the years bicycles have killed WAY more people than RC planes ever could , seen anyone forced to pass a knowledge and skills test to ride a bicycle lately ? If every crashed model aircraft , and I'm talkin air hogz sized and up , generated a report to the FAA , it'd likely take them till 3019 to actually in depth examine the thousands of reports sent in 2019
Old 07-05-2019, 04:28 PM
  #35  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,517
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

I'm not saying that someone being killed in a crash is the same as an R/C crashing. What I'm saying is, IF the FAA was to require documentation on each and every crash, be it full sized or R/C, the R/C world would look much worse than GA. With that said, I would never expect the FAA to send a crash team out to an R/C flying site unless someone was actually hurt by said crash.

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 07-05-2019 at 04:34 PM.
Old 07-05-2019, 05:52 PM
  #36  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,489
Received 172 Likes on 148 Posts
Default

And to set the record straight, I have only crashed one airplane in the past 5 years LOL.

The reality is that there are a great many things that have far more loss of life potential than R/C airplanes that the government is not as concerned as maybe they should be. The only reason why we are being regulated is that the media has created a bit of a panic with the general public. Of course if it weren't for a very small percentage of the 800,000 drone operators being idiots then the media wouldn't have anything to spin. This is where we are regardless of the reasons and none of us have a time traveling Delorean in the garage to change any circumstances that got us here. As of right now the FAA is going to work with us to allow us to continue in places they deem acceptable. Yes we are going to loose some sites, yes we are going to have some sites regulated to 400'. IMO I would be willing to bet that 85%-90% of the current fixed sites will be able to operate just as they always have after they go through the waiver process. The fact that the FAA is not stopping events from happening and have already or in the process of granting waivers in class G airspace is IMO a great indicator that they are willing to work with us.
Old 07-06-2019, 06:34 AM
  #37  
jester_s1
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 7,266
Received 35 Likes on 30 Posts
Default

I don't think it's just the media. A member of my RC club is a commercial pilot, and he said drones harassing airliners are becoming a real issue. He's had to take go arounds a couple of time due to some imbecile trying to get the Youtube video of the week in the approach area. I agree the media has made it look to the public like it's more prevalent than it really is, but that doesn't mean there isn't a genuine problem that the FAA must address.

Myself, I'd be a fan of direct aggressive action. The net shooting drone for defending airports was a good idea. If a guy flies his drone into restricted airspace, the drone gets deployed. Shoot it down, no warnings, and if identification is found on the drone destroy the vehicle and then fine the pilot. The media can report that, which would put all the yahoos on notice.
Old 07-07-2019, 06:27 PM
  #38  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,517
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
And to set the record straight, I have only crashed one airplane in the past 5 years LOL.
I was using the three of us arbitrarily as well as how many times we've crashed. My point was you and Jester fly routinely and I don't. That said, my point was how would the FAA look at the three of us on a "per crash" basis, not knowing how much each of us fly? My one hypothetical crash might have happened during one of five flights during the year while the arbitrary numbers I listed for you and Jester could be across hundreds of flights.
Old 07-07-2019, 06:57 PM
  #39  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,489
Received 172 Likes on 148 Posts
Default

My comment was a joke. The rest of your post is irrelevant as the FAA is not going to require any reports of crashed R/C airplanes. The only interest the FAA has is keeping UAS and manned aircraft separated.
Old 07-07-2019, 09:00 PM
  #40  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,517
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
My comment was a joke. The rest of your post is irrelevant as the FAA is not going to require any reports of crashed R/C airplanes. The only interest the FAA has is keeping UAS and manned aircraft separated.
Are you so sure? Times are changing and so are the laws being passed to go along with them. You might find that, next year, that very situation may be thrust upon us.
That said, I'm out of this thread too, since I'm obviously an uninformed boater that knows nothing about aviation or what the FAA could do if pushed by Congress
Old 07-08-2019, 05:55 AM
  #41  
jester_s1
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 7,266
Received 35 Likes on 30 Posts
Default

Take it easy, HydroJunkie. I don't think anybody thinks that about you. You make good contributions to the forum, and your thoughts are appreciated. Don't forget that sometimes words sound more blunt or harsh in print than they do in person. Misunderstandings do happen.
Old 07-08-2019, 06:52 AM
  #42  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,341
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jester_s1
Take it easy, HydroJunkie. I don't think anybody thinks that about you. You make good contributions to the forum, and your thoughts are appreciated.

I 100% agree with this , about Hydro and all the rest of the regular posters




Don't forget that sometimes words sound more blunt or harsh in print than they do in person. Misunderstandings do happen.

And this shoud be a sticky at the top of the AMA subforum here !


Old 07-08-2019, 06:59 AM
  #43  
Stickslammer
 
Stickslammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Pertaining to quadcopters, not only is safety a big issue, there is also the privacy one. In reading some of the letters written by officials advocating restrictive measures, there are many instances of "peeping drones" affecting private citizens and corporate interests. Although a regular line of sight craft with some sophisticated camera equipment on board could also be used.
Old 07-08-2019, 07:02 AM
  #44  
Stickslammer
 
Stickslammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun
I'm in agreement with Speedracer that when multicopters first hit the mass market they became the "Latest & greatest new fad toy" , and once the shine finally wears off for the casually interested but non committed they will be off ogling the latest vape pen or whatever the new trinket of the week is . Once enough of them and the "hold my beer & watch this !" crowd moves on we'll still be flying , albeit with the restrictions their threadcrapping in our hobby will have wrought . But flying we still will be , and as the yahoos move on I do believe the MR crew itself will become comprised more and more of the dedicated type of which Speed speaks .

One can only hope
Well put!
Old 07-08-2019, 10:47 AM
  #45  
jester_s1
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 7,266
Received 35 Likes on 30 Posts
Default

Privacy is an illusion. Nobody is truly private. Snowden's leak showed us that the CIA has the tech and the will to snoop into all kinds of personal data. It all happens without our knowledge, and the vast majority of us never say or do anything that the government considers a threat. Drones aren't even our 5th or 6th biggest concern where privacy is concerned.
Old 07-08-2019, 11:04 AM
  #46  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,489
Received 172 Likes on 148 Posts
Default

I used to tell my kids " if you aren't comfortable with the whole world knowing what you are doing then think twice before doing it ". That being said, it is an uncomfortable feeling when someone threatens to invade your privacy via hacking a personal device.
Old 07-08-2019, 11:55 AM
  #47  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,341
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Stickslammer
Pertaining to quadcopters, not only is safety a big issue, there is also the privacy one. In reading some of the letters written by officials advocating restrictive measures, there are many instances of "peeping drones" affecting private citizens and corporate interests. Although a regular line of sight craft with some sophisticated camera equipment on board could also be used.
As to privacy , I believe our friend Stickslammer was speaking of drones being used to peep into private home's bedroom windows VS the kinds of electronic "Hacks" as mentioned by Jester and Speed . Everyone now knows to not go putting naked selfies on the Cloud , thanks to the young actress (can't recall her name) who was the subject of such a hack a year ago , and showed the world that even the rich & famous aren't immune from that type of electronic espionage . Back to Stickslammer's point the general public has already seen at least one high profile "peeping drone" case , the actor who stars on that "world's dirtiest jobs" show was peeped in his own home by a drone , I don't recall if that pilot/perp was ever caught or not ...
Old 07-08-2019, 02:31 PM
  #48  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,517
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jester_s1
Take it easy, HydroJunkie. I don't think anybody thinks that about you. You make good contributions to the forum, and your thoughts are appreciated. Don't forget that sometimes words sound more blunt or harsh in print than they do in person. Misunderstandings do happen.
Not so sure I can agree with you on this one, Jester. There are several, some of which have been banned, that feel they know more than the rest of us because of how and what they fly. You and I have been on opposite sides of an issue, more than once, and your posts have never had a condescending or "I'm superior" tone to them and, quite honestly, I've tried very hard not to be that way in my posts as well. At the same time, I also won't claim to know everything. What I do know, I've learned from others that are experienced pilots, both full sized and R/C, from my own projects and helping others with theirs. I've been told, in many threads, by someone in the forums that I can't know anything because I don't fly like he does or my posts are irrelevant. Sooner or later, I'm likely to say something that will get me in trouble with the moderators and, rather than doing so, I've decided to just leave threads. I only hope that those that think they know all will be put in their place by those that actually do know more than the the ones that think they do.
Old 07-09-2019, 07:40 AM
  #49  
jester_s1
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 7,266
Received 35 Likes on 30 Posts
Default

Agreed the whole "peeping tom" issue with drones is a concern. But the FAA isn't worried about that. They've actually stated quite clearly that homeowners don't own the airspace above their land. I handle it by keeping my clothes on outside and not storing images online of myself that I would object to others seeing. It works pretty well.
The FAA's real concern is going to be safety for full scale pilots. That is how it should be. A distant second will be safety for everything else that could be caused by drone crashes. I know lots of people have been critical of the AMA's lobbying and negotiating efforts on this, but I'm actually pretty impressed. We aren't likely to see any significant limits to what we can do in the long run. Even the 400 foot altitude limit will likely relax for fields away from airports as the AMA makes a convincing case that we aren't a threat. I do think there will be a crackdown on flying near airports, as there should be.
Old 07-09-2019, 11:56 AM
  #50  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,489
Received 172 Likes on 148 Posts
Default

Jester, I agree and especially with that the AMA has been able to accomplish considering what they were up against. Truly a David and Goliath type situation. That is why I will never understand modelers who won't support AMA with their membership yet expect AMA to fight for all modelers. Representing us is not cheap, the more members AMA has then the more funds are available to represent us. More importantly the larger our voice is. It amazes me that some people fail to see this.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.