jester_s1

I'm sure Speed is capable of responding on his own and I look forward to his thoughts. But I'm going to address this too because you've said it twice that the FAA shouldn't be worried about us due to our past successes.

The truth is the situation has changed. Flight controllers, autonomous and otherwise, have made BLOS flying possible. That isn't going away. The media is also different- always looking for the next sensation headline regardless of the repercussions. I'll also mention that there have been documented incidences of RC vehicles (the public and the FAA don't differentiate) being flown around airports and other sensitive areas. The FAA was under pressure to do something about it.
Technology has made it possible for RC aircraft to be more dangerous than they used to be and much easier to weaponize. That's not any of our faults, but it is our problem. The FAA had to move, and it's is just silly to think that all the AMA had to do was show up and say, "We've never caused a problem before, You shouldn't regulate us until we do." The hobby's stellar safety record was a major talking point with the FAA, and it did earn us some concessions. But there was no way some kind of regulations weren't going to happen. There was just too much momentum going in that direction for the AMA to stop it. And no, distancing itself from drones wouldn't have helped. The better flight controllers can be set up in fixed wing airplanes too, so they are just as big a perceived threat.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Truth is, if the AMA had distanced itself from autonomous flight (aka drones; fixed-wing or otherwise) the situation would have been EXACTLY the same as it had been for 80+ years.
Again, you are talking about DRONES.
Once again, DRONES
Why is that so silly? Please explain.
Again, you keep saying that, but would you care to explain your hypothesis?
Yes, and that would be a DRONE, you know, those things that I believe the AMA should have created separation from?
Regards,

Astro

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Attitude? LOL
I know you cannot see it, but your method of communicating and debating are more offensive than whatever "attitude" you may have perceived that I have!

Astro

ira d

I also don't think had the AMA come out against drones it would have helped anything, I think when people say distance from drone they mean the AMA should have told its members not use the advance
technology that allows for beyond line of sight operation. I for one don't want the AMA telling me I can't use anything that is legal and also if someone is going to fly their RC aircraft in a illegal manner
they will still do so no matter what the AMA says.

I think the problem for the AMA is they need to say what the FAA says and stop saying that AMA members can keep flying as they always have and we may get either 700' or 1200' agreement with the
FAA when the FAA is not saying such. Also I think if the the FAA does grant waivers for higher than 400' they will apply to all modelers not just AMA members because to do otherwise will open up more
problems. I think if the AMA would get on the same page as the FAA maybe things would be different.

Hydro Junkie

And I have to totally agree with this.
The AMA leadership has unabashedly spread misinformation over the past few years. To tell the membership to continue on as it's always done had been a disservice at best and asking for trouble with lawmakers/enforcers at worst. At the same time, we have heard repeatedly that the AMA has been trying to get concessions that would apply only to it's members, something that the FAA COULD NOT DO as it would show preferential treatment to an organization's members and not all modelers. This is a fundamental difference to what the NRA has successfully been doing. The NRA has been fighting against regulating or banning weapons for all citizens, not just it's own members. They also ARE NOT trying to change the laws to being worded in a way that requires anyone that wants to own or shoot a firearm has to be a member, unlike the AMA trying to get the legislation worded in such a way as to require membership to be able to fly anything R/C. This is a major reason why the NRA has been successful with their lobbying while the AMA hasn't. At the same time, the FAA has had to overcome the AMA's section 336 legislation, something that tied the hands of the FAA when it came to protecting full sized aircraft from the recent proliferation of camera equipped "drones". Congress and the FAA, predictably, responded by removing 336 and, figuratively speaking, slapped down the AMA.

jester_s1

Drones and traditional RC aircraft aren't two separate hobbies. Drones are a development of the aeromodeling hobby. That's how the hobby shops see it, that's how the manufacturers see it, that's how the public sees it, and that's how the government sees it. I'm well aware that many if not most traditional aeromodelers aren't interested in drones. The same situation was there in the late 70's and early 80's as rc eclipsed control line flying with a lot of the same animosity. Like it or not, drones are progress and they are a part of our hobby whether we acknowledge it or not. And no, all drone pilots are imbeciles who don't want insurance and regulations. The vast majority, just like us, are responsible people who want to enjoy their toys without bothering anyone. And as I stated before, the better flight controllers can make traditional models autonomous. I could set up a Pixhawk and a camera in my old Cub and set up GPS waypoints to send it on a mission. I could probably have it ready to go in a week's time complete with PID setting all good and auto takeoff and landing worked out. The AMA and the FAA knows this, and the technology is just going to continue to get better from here to make it easier and more capable.

So the FAA lumps it all together, because that makes sense to them. The AMA made the right choice to embrace drones. To separate from them would have been to alienate the fastest growing segment of our hobby, weakening the AMA's position and accomplishing nothing with the FAA. It would have been good for us if the FAA would have made a hard separation between drones and traditional RC flying, but they weren't going to regardless of what the AMA said or did. The AMA leadership was wise enough to see that and made the best choice they could. It was a compromise, but it was better than being hard nosed as many wanted them to and losing all opportunity to influence the decisions that got made.

init4fun

Hydro , your entire post is spot on , and I wanted to expand on this one part of it a bit if I may ;

It appears to be very easily provable that the AMA has been telling us members to continue "doing as we've always done" even as the FAA has repeatedly said otherwise , it's in the AMA Emails we get and I've saved every one of them . The FAA has also made it's position very clear , stay under 400 feet in controlled airspace . Does this not open up the AMA to legal liability should the unthinkable happen (AMA member's model airplane VS Full Scale crash above 400 feet) ?

Scenario ; Unthinkable accident happens , and the model airplane pilot presents as his defense that his representative organization , you know , the one who is presently the only one who is recognized to represent our hobby to the FAA , has repeatedly stated to the membership to "do as we have always done" , leading that model airplane pilot to believe he was perfectly legal to be at the 800 foot height where the incident happened . How could the AMA not be seen as contributing to the cause of the disaster when it can be proven that it has engaged in a campaign of deliberate misinformation to it's members regarding the FAA's altitude requirement for a 400 foot hard limit in controlled airspace ?

When bad things happen , the Lawyers ALWAYS go after the "deep pockets" in lawsuits seeking monetary reimbursement . In my above scenario I believe the AMA very well could be held liable right alongside the model aircraft pilot , due to the fact that it can be proven the AMA has held fast to the "fly as you always have" mantra even as the FAA has made it perfectly clear that 400 feet in controlled airspace is now the law of the land . At what point does the AMA loose the benefit of the doubt between an unintentional misinterpretation of the FAA's rules VS a deliberate campaign of misinformation designed to placate the membership to keep the membership dollars flowing in ?

ira d

IMO because of advances in technology for RC aircraft and people using that technology to do stupid things the FAA had to act, but IMO the best way to act would have been taking a hard line against those were
endangering full scale operations. I think RC flyers that were not causing any problems should for the most part been left alone especially flyers that operated from a designated RC site that was over 5 miles
from a full scale airport. I could understand sites that were within 5 miles of a airport being assessed and in some cases alituide restrictions only may have been in order but otherwise should be left alone.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

That is your opinion. My opinion is that they are distinctly different hobbies, and the way they are practiced, affect the NAS and general public arena in very different ways. Why else do you think the FAA and the media have just recently gotten involved? Open your eyes, the media and FAA wouldn't give two shakes of piss about modelers if drones hadn't started to infringe on their daily existence.
Do you even read what you are writing? LOL The AMA is rapidly losing members, DESPITE trying to embrace the MILLIONS of drone operators out there!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jester_s1

weakening the AMA's position and accomplishing nothing with the FAA.

Jester, just because you write stuff, doesn't make it true! I don't know if you have noticed, but the AMA HAS no position nor has it accomplished ANYTHING with the FAA!
so it would have been good for the FAA to separate drones from traditional RC activities, but NOT for the AMA to do so?

Your posts are so full of contradictory statements. It is clear to me that you are only here to argue and spin your agenda.

Hydro Junkie

Okay Mr. Hog, I think you've made your point. We all know:
1) everything went to hell with the introduction of quad copters.
2) the AMA is bleeding to death due to poor financial management.
3) the AMA has been running a misinformation campaign to try and keep members and mislead nonmembers into joining
4) the AMA's legal team is totally ineffectual due to what they are trying to accomplish, obtaining special privileges for members at the expense of the safety of full sized manned avaition
All the above said, arguing with Speed and Jester over this isn't going to change anything, including their opinions and beliefs about the AMA

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

As you are fully aware, I am not here to argue. My kryptonite is folks that cannot conduct a civil and fact-based conversation or debate.

Astro

Hydro Junkie

I know, it's just that appearances can be deceiving.

jester_s1

I'm done with this thread. I'm always up for a civil conversation, and have no difficulty with logic and reason. Hell, I was a champion debate speaker in college and have a master's degree in theology (very logic and philosophy heavy). But I won't continue in a conversation where the other person doesn't consider a well reasoned argument, opting instead to pick out a phrase here and there to twist it around and draw invalid conclusions. Jester out.

sideshow

My Feedback: (11)

Based on everything I've read that's ALL you're here to do. So....ignored.

While any altitude approved above 400' AGL will apply to all who fly at that site, the site will only be AMA sites that have an LOA (Letter of Agreement) with the ATC facility overlying the flying site. It will not be an area waiver per se and AMA will be the only entity allowed to apply for such waivers. Unfortunately, the AMA will need to apply to the local facility that covers each AMA flying site....and there are hundreds. AMA has already applied for the flying site in Muncie...but that's going to be difficult to get above 700' AGL.

ira d

I went to the FAA site that covers recreational flying and I don't see anything about the AMA or applying to local FAA facility, I also read on the FAA site that the FAA has not released any guidance yet on recognizing a CBO
The site also said flying outside of class G airspace must be done at a fixed RC site but did not say a AMA site. Now I do realize that most fixed sites in the usa are AMA but there is no law that says they have to be.

sideshow

My Feedback: (11)

My post was based on a conversation I had with the FAA project manager. You can fly outside of controlled up to 400 feet but not above it, there are exceptions where a lower altitude is required in controlled airspace. This may actually be zero where no flying is allowed at all, like near an airport. If you want to fly higher it will need to be waivered with the controlling ATC facility and only the AMA can submit those.

ira d

Evidently the project manager at the FAA and the FAA website are not on the same page but things like that do happen.

sideshow

My Feedback: (11)

I think the hard 400' altitude may be a newish thing. It seems to have taken the AMA by surprise but the impression I got is that the law says 400', so they're going enforce 400'. I think a few people are hoping that the AMA would not be the exclusive CBO, but formal naming ceremony notwithstanding it seems they are....