RCUer75345

They're not "in violation" of anything. There is no requirement to join AMA to fly at that park, and there never has been. It's open to the GENERAL PUBLIC. The only rules in a State park are applicable Federal and State laws. If park policy didn't approve of IC engines the field would have been shut down long ago.

These guys haven't, and they're not going to. A sizeable portion of them would quit before downsizing.

Irrelevant. That "sizeable portion" doesn't fly here. Anyway I doubt the AMA is checking up to see how many "park flyers" are really restricting themselves to those limits. And, just because "some will" does likewise not prove a universal.

I tried helping with mowing; the old guy who's done it for years didn't like the job I did. Not my problem because I now fly at the club field. I could afford a mower and trailer, but some of the guys who fly there cannot. They'll be in a real jam when he quits because he can't fly his gassers anymore.

Not in this place anymore; once the weeds are mature they're head high. Johnny would be eaten by some of the smaller mosquitoes before he reached where the clearing used to be. And the Ranger would stop him because of the fire risk.

And yet, in this specific case, the simplest thing those guys could do to keep the site "as is" would be to form a club and apply for FRIA status. Although there's no REQUIREMENT, most of the regulars are AMA members already, because I see them flying at local club fields when they host fun flies. So no cost to join AMA. They could easily form a club with minimal dues, and give it to "mower guy" to pay for his gas and time. As a FRIA they could continue flying their existing equipment without being limited by the silly Park Flyer rules.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

The real world doesn't play by your rules, Franklin. It's more complicated than you make it out to be. You need to stop making prescriptions for situations you don't understand.

FUTABA-RC

Gotta ask. How much less could you or the 800,000 care??

RCUer75345

I'll allow you to take credit for your own idea by putting it in your own comments. Here's what I plan to propose:

- Follow the FAA's current plan during the initial 12 month period. This will establish a "core group" of FRIAs. Makes sense because existing and nascent CBOs are the best prepared organizations to set up and run these things. And it doesn't hurt anyone, because it's only 12 months out of the 36 month grace period.

- During the next 12 months, continue to allow CBOs to apply, but extend eligibility to non-CBO organized entities such as STEM schools, and also individuals with suitable properties. The FAA can use this period to "fill in the holes" left in the core group, to make sure no one has too far to drive to reach a FRIA. How far is too far? Well, I'm thinking at least one per county might be reasonable. Maybe counties are bigger in the Western states so we should go with some distance in miles? Anyway I'd like to make sure that anyone who wants to fly a big gasser or a jet doesn't have to drive several hours to do so.

- Beyond 24 months, I'd like to see some kind of provision for annual "growth", since the population (and number of potential aeromodellers) continues to increase. I also want the rule quashed that once the requestor asks for a FRIA to be closed that the site is permanently banned from reactivation. That is simply unnecessarily harsh and restrictive. I also want a guarantee that when a requestor closes a FRIA, that slot remains open for a replacement.

- IOW, I'm proposing a permanent network of airports for model airplanes. I don't envision this as being "fee-free". I think that's unrealistic given that somebody has to pay for the upkeep, and we know the FAA has no budget for ANY of the regulations in the NPRM. To avoid a legal challenge as an "unfunded mandate" the AMA needs to let entities organizing FRIAs charge reasonable operating fees. I think most people -- including judges -- would recognize that as "fair".

- As to "little Johnny in the park", you want to force him to follow AMA Park Flyer rules, plus require altitude encoding telemetry. I want something more liberal -- I'm going to ask for the threshold weight for registration for fixed-wing UAS flown LOS to be raised to 2 kg. With no altitude encoding requirement. Unlike you I trust the majority of R/C flyers to practice "see and avoid" just as they have for over 80 years. I may not get it -- but at least I tried.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

LOL. This quote was the OP from this thread!

You guys are so full of yourselves and your little game, that you have no dea what thread you are even posting in.

Astro

franklin_m

Status quo? Not much because they can fly legally in many places w/o tithing to AMA. After the rule passes, I think they're going to care a lot - because then it's fly illegally, shelve equipment, expensive upgrades, or tithe $75 a year to AMA.

I submit that AMA (and industry) needs to be careful what it wishes for. Assume 800,000 mostly MR types suddenly flood clubs, I could see any number elect new leaders that are far less concerned about "traditional" model aircraft.

franklin_m

It does "hurt" someone in that the non-AMA members are "harmed" compulstory membership in a PRIVATE dues collecting organization with positions and agendas with which they do not agree. It also "harms" other organizations through the anti-competitive advantage enjoyed by ONE private dues collecting organization.

Not sure on this, but I certainly don't live out west, and it's 40 minutes one way from where I live (in center of the county) to the boarder. Longer (time wise) in some directions, hour or more. This drives up the costs of the FRIA considerably.

Do not support. FAA's long term goal is 100% of sUAS equipped w/ Remote ID. To allow FRIAs into perpetutity means that goal will never be achieved because there is no forcing function. Actually, it makes more sense to just kill the idea of FRIAs all together, and allow ONLY compliant equipment to fly. No grace period. Yes, it's the rip off the bandaid approach, but it gets all whining and knashing of teeth out of the way up front.

The AMA needs to "let"...? I thought it WAS the AMA organizing the FRIAs, as the local clubs do not meet the CBO criteria. Isn't that ceding authority to determine who can and cannot access the PUBLIC airspace rest in the hands of a PRIVATE organization? Sorry. That's inherently governmental. Pure public access is the only way to go. Everyone pays same fair share amount whether AMA or not.


I could support raising the threshold for registration, but that is separate from Remote ID. Remote ID starts at 0.55 as well. Either way, I don't see the FAA going for either. "The way we've always done it" has led to the near misses, the interrupted fire fighting efforts, etc.

RCUer75345

The "hurt" is entirely theoretical since there is a 36 month grace period. Nobody has to do anything different during the first three years. So nobody who doesn't want to has to join anything during this initial 12 month period.

Mm, sounds like you'd rather have some maximum distance in miles. What would satisfy you? 30? 15?

And there it is again: The Argument From Authority. The sacred "Task", which under no circumstances may be refused. Befehl ist Befehl! "Gentlemen, whether we attack Pearl Harbor is no longer an issue"...
Personally, I don't give one pinch of owl dung what the FAA's goals are. MY goal is to keep my hobby as it is, as much as possible, for as long as possible. If I can make the FAA see that ADJUSTING their goal to accomodate me won't seriously interfere with the LARGER goal of safe unmanned air traffic management -- well that sounds like a win-win.
Doesn't it? Is the question really too rude to ask?

OK, sorry. You got me on a typo. Mea culpa, mea dummox. Might of had something to do with driving to and from a different city for a meeting and a coupla beers afterward. Replace "AMA" with "FAA" and read again.

Incorrect, as the NPRM is currently written only registered UAS are required to be equipped with Remote ID.

Unquestionably, but I don't think the risk piece represented by FIXED-WING under 2kg UAS flown within VLOS for "limited recreational operations" (this is FAA-speak for traditional model planes) warrants tracking them with Remote ID. If you have studies that show differently (remember sub 2 kg fixed wing ONLY) please present them.

FUTABA-RC

You clearly missed the joke. The term is actual "I could not care less." Indicating that you have reached the depths of your ability to care about the issue. You made the common grammatical error of writing "I could care less". Which is why I asked how much less you could care.

It was a gentle jab and meant as humor.

RCUer75345

Three

RCUer75345

Actually, I think the term is "actually". But I'm too polite to mention it.

Oh wait...

franklin_m

I hope you enjoyed your little trolling effort.

I will make the case to the FAA that the FRIA concept is fundamentally flawed as the policy is all but a compulsory requirement to join a PRIVATE dues collecting organization in order to exercise the only realistic option for citizens to fly non-compliant equipment. Forced membership requires taxpayers to give money to an organization that may advocate for things with which they do not agree. Supreme Court held recently that is unconstitutional in a right to work case. This isn’t much different - in that it’s forced association.

With a little luck, the FAA will mandate that FRIAs cannot discriminate based on membership in private organizations. If it is because landowners require insurance, than that’s easy. AMA’s IRS 990’s going back decades show that about 18% of the dues is spent on insurance. I think that works out to about $14 dollars.

mach5nchimchim

You are doing the best job you can to moderate these forums, you are professional enough to not take sides and keep an open neutral mind...

Good Job Sir!

init4fun

Andy hasn't moderated this forum since he was elected to an official AMA position , he himself said he didn't want the appearance of any conflicts of interests .

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I would be willing to bet he has his eye on us.

mach5nchimchim

People talking about what has the AMA has done or hasn't done and why would you pay their membership fee, Really just put it down as part of your rc budget, So if the AMA does get a monopoly on FRIA sites, it's them following what the FAA says, so like you guys who are anti AMA but follow FAA, now you will be outlaw fliers if you don't ID up and don't fly at a AMA FRIA site because you don't won't to pay their dues. You can't have it both ways.

franklin_m

Thankfully the Supreme Court has held that freedom of association is part of our first amendment rights. And federal courts have held that from "to" associate is also by definition a freedom to "not" associate. So when a federal government agency creates a policy that leaves on practical way to comply with the rule, and to exercise that one method means one MUST join a particular private dues collecting organization, that creates a problem.

Given FAA's attitude toward AMA, I suspect they're aware of the problem, and are hoping there will be a comment to the NPRM that gives them the ammo they need to stick a fork in the FRIA concept (as written).

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I will assume this is exactly why they have not named a single CBO (yet?), and why the FAA clearly stated that one did NOT have to be an actual member of a CBO, but rather act in accordance WITH THE SAFETY RULES OF a CBO. Of course, that was before there was such a thing as a FRIA, so like Franklin, I am hoping they will realize the conflict and make appropriate changes.

Astro

warningshot

I am asking that you clean this thread up and delete all off topic post.
Thank you

RCUer75345

How ironic that "freedom of association" is to be used to force members of a private club to allow the general public free use of their facilities.

How ironic that "freedom of association" is to be used to compel private landowners to open private facilities to the general public.

Maybe there'll be a court challenge in the opposite direction?

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

And he asked so nicely.......

Astro

franklin_m

Yet another reason why the FRIA concept is fundamentally flawed.

RCUer75345

The thread was off topic before the end of the first page. So maybe he should ask everyone to prune irrelevant posts, not just me.

In any case, topics will expand and morph like tree branches in any long thread. Experience suggests that no more than three consecutive posts will stay close to the original topic without some kind of diversion. It's characteristic of the medium. If he wanted to object without starting a discussion, a more appropriate venue would be an editorial page.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Yep, you are right. You always are. Justify it all you want, two wrongs don't make a right. Do you really think that the, "Everybody else is doing it, so it is okay" mantra is good for the group?
True colors....

Astro

RCUer75345

Well, "everybody else" evidently includes YOU. Does my off-topic post justify yours?

You and the OP talk like I started it. Pretty obvious from reading the thread, I didn't.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Not necessarily, except mine is intended to put an end to it, you on the other hand, just keep exacerbating the issue.

Completely irrelevant, but nice try!
"I know you are, but what am I?"
LOL

Astro