astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I as well, thought he was very well-spoken and represented the hobby in a positive, professional manner. And what did you think about the AMA Representative?

Astro

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

You have made it very clear that you think I am "Anti-AMA" and an "AMA hater", etc., but that couldn't be further from the truth. You also make comments that suggest that I am always on the same page as your good buddy, Franklin, but that is not true either.

My Biggest (and really only) beef with the AMA is that they did not distinguish and advocate for both traditional and BLOS, autonomous flight separately. It is crystal clear to me and the vast majority of modelers I have spoken to, that there are distinct differences between the two disciplines of flight, both with who participates in each (yes, of course there are exceptions!), as well as how they interact with and affect the NAS. I have to believe that AMA HQ sees and knows the differences as well, but they chose to take the lump-em-all-together-and-make-them-all-join-the-AMA route. It is because of this and the potentially grave consequences of doing so, that I truly believe that AMA HQ could care less about its' membership, ALL of it. That actually stings a little bit and saddens me, Yes, traditional model aviation may be antiquated and for old fogies, but it is very much the vast majority of this hobby and its participants. I find it appalling that the AMA would jeopardize the majority of its' members because there was a potential bigger pot of gold.

That is how I see it. It is what I know to be true and what I believe. If you have any facts that support something different, you can try to change my mind, but it will be difficult!

Regards,

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Honestly I felt she was out of her league. Not sure why they would have sent her and not Chad.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

In my opinion, based on what I saw in that video, she is not qualified for the paid position she has. Granted, the CES discussion has no bearing on our outcome with the FAA, but I really felt that the AMA was very poorly represented by her. They have enough resources to have competent people in those positions.

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

We may have more in common then we realize. I too think that the attempt to bring the MR/FPV crowd into the fold was a mistake. They would have done better IMO to stick with what they know. I can't blame them for attempting to boost membership, every business seeks to increase " sales ". I just think they made a series of bad calls. I am happy to see Flite Test and PMA trying to establish themselves as CBOs, the more organizations representing us the better IMO. As you may recall, my main argument in supporting the AMA was based in the fact that until recently they were the only organization fighting for us. This is no longer the fact.

The new CBOs have their work cut out for them. Their biggest hurtle is going to be providing insurance if that is even their plan. IMO $75 per year for secondary ( primary for many ) really is a great deal. I have to think that the long standing history of safe operation under the AMA has more then just a little to do with that rate. Something the other CBOs won't have when looking for a carrier.

As you know a big part of the hobby for me is Pattern and soaring competitions, without the coverage that AMA sanctions brings to the event, I'm not sure that clubs will continue to host events. Obviously I am going to support the avenue that lets me continue to compete in those events. Right now AMA and FRIA sites appear to be the most likely option.

Beleive it or not I am not trying to change anyone's mind. We all have the right to our own perspective. My issue is when someone is being shady and disregarding others experiences. We need to get over always being on the defensive. I have to beleive that you see how poorly Franklin speaks to anyone who opposes any of his opinions, how he works at discrediting people. Sure I have stooped to that as well at times but I feel for the most part it has been reactionary. I truly beleive he is the catalyst that for some reason brings out the worst in some of us. Not making excuses as I accept full responsibility for anything I have said on these forums.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I agree to a certain point. She was lacking, no argument there. That said, I doubt Muncie Indiana has a pool of superstars to draw from. I could compare the situation to that of Champagne Illinois. Champagne is nothing more then a college town so when you call into Horizon for customer/technical support you usually get someone who is simply working their way through college.

Hydro Junkie

Okay, that is a step in the right direction. Speed agrees that if Hannah is the best litigator the AMA had to send to that event, we are all in trouble as the FAA powers that be are going to run over her like she's not even there

franklin_m

And when I'm talking about the lack of respect for AMA among other stakeholders, their incompetence, etc., it's choices like sending her of which I'm speaking. These opportunities are limited and should not be squandered - as was this one.

AMA is unprofessional in its approach. For proof look no further than who they sent to the major consumer electronics event in the US (if not the world) to a forum where the explicit discussion was sure to address issues critical to the organization's membership.

I'm curious. Have you shared your thoughts on this with AMA leadership? Are you content to have them repeat these mistakes? Repeat these lost opportunities? Are you holding leadership accountable?

franklin_m

If they want to be taken seriously, they need to find a way to deliver regardless of where they're located. After all, it wasn't the members that decided to leave DC (where you're awash in talent) and move to the middle of nowhere. Who's accountable for that decision? As it's clear they didn't consider the unintended consequences.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I can. The AMA is NOT a business! They are a non-profit whose sole purpose is to serve their hobbyist membership. As has been stated by many here, it is up the the AMA members to provide the impetus for growth.

As I am sure you are aware, insurance rats are based on the odds of paying a claim. These odds are based on many numbers that are crunched by the actuaries. Any organization that has similar structure and safety code as the AMA will be "rated" similarly, and pay similar rates. I am sure there are some savings based on sheer numbers of membership, but they do not affect the premiums nearly as much as the ocritical activities that are being insured against. As Franklin has been pointing out, if asked WHY their activities have been historically safe, the AMA really has no answer, except for their safety code. Other than that, there is no official safety protocol; "Uhhh, every club has a guy that yells at people if they fly over the pits...".
See above comment. I don't believe this to be true. ANY (new) organization can have a similar safety code and tell the Insurance Company, "We are just like the AMA, we have the exact same safety structure"

I see a lot of, "traditionalists" saying these same things, and they just don't hold much water. Mankind has been competing with each other since the dawn of time. Heck, two guys show up at the field...BOOM! GAME ON! To say that without the AMA it wouldn't be feasible to compete is complete horse pucky!

SPEED, SPEED, SPEED......You REALLY need to look in the mirror! WORDS HAVE MEANING. THE SPECIFIC WAY THEY ARE WRITTEN can take on different context and nuances. The problem with the written language on an internet forum for toy airplanes is that not everyone participating has the same level of comprehension and command of the language, so many of the nuances are lost,or many times, simply misunderstood. For instance, when you ramble on about how experienced and involved you are as a justification for your opinion, it does NOT make you any more correct! It also serves as a kind of back-handed biotch-slap to to the person you are debating with, by essentially claiming you are on higher ground because of, blah, blah, blah.....This is SPECIFICALLY why I choose NOT to go on and on about what level of experience I have (or do not have) in this hobby, rather I like to try and stick to the abject FACTS as much as possible. When folks consider the facts, it usually turns out that there is really only one best and logical solution for all, not two sides (or two options) that divide us. After all, at the end of the day, EVERY ONE of us has the love of model aviation in common, EXCEPT for the droners, who are more into gadgetry, cameras, computers than actual model aviation, but it seems that more and more people are FINALLY starting to realize that it is a completely different hobby!

Here is my honest opinion, and I really do not necessarily align with a majority of Franklin's opinions. I actually think that the way he is approaching some of these issues will severely limit the freedoms we have enjoyed to fly traditional model aircraft. Now here is the whammy....I honestly don't think he treats folks here any better or worse than you do (please, for the sake of these threads, take a step back and look in the mirror, be the bigger man, if you will). He is not looking to get personal (until he is attacked, remember the human thing?)Franklin supports his opinions with actual facts (yes, sometimes they are spun a little to further his narrative, but that is the world we live in, unfortunately) and when one side has facts and the other has opinions, the debate usually turns into a debacle. When you use your wealth of experience as support for your agenda or beliefs, it really does not matter what they are, if the facts PROVE it otherwise. For instance, Franklin quoted what AMA pays out for insurance for each of its members (it is public knowledge, right there on their tax returns), yet you chose to make a statement that it wasn't true or that you didn't believe it. THAT, my friend, is sure to end badly! Also, for the sake of these forums and the unity of our hobby, just QUIT the personal attacks. I don't care who did it first, this is not the elementary school playground! If each of us chooses NOT to engage when we feel we have been personally attacked, that will amount to 50% less personal attacks in these threads! I too, have engaged in getting personal, but I GUARANTEE that it was only after repeated stabs and jabs my way. I am human and can only take so much. I live by my Dad's advice about bullies that he gave me in elemenatry school. Walk away, walk away, walk away.....GIVE IT TO EM!!!!!!

Regards,

Astro

RCUer75345

The genuinely curious can find a brief history here:

https://www.modelaircraft.org/histor...ct/ama-history

The AMA's initial 1979 move out of DC was to Reston, VA -- hardly "the middle of nowhere". This was discussed in the newsletter, and as I recall the organization basically had no choice. Downtown DC rents were beyond the AMA's means and the landlord simply wasn't interested in keeping their business. The suburban location also gave them room for a museum.

As I recall, the AMA also seriously considered an offer to move HQ to western Ohio at that time. This was rejected primarily because key staff people didn't want to leave the greater DC area.

I don't recall the reasons for the 1988 move to Muncie, but I suspect the opportunity to make a permanent home for the NATS was a major factor. Muncie is near the population center of the US and land was cheap and available. I see little point in second-guessing decisions made 32 years ago by different people in an era of different priorities.

And I hardly think all the "talent" that DC is supposedly awash in comes from the natives. Talent follows money. Most of the movers and shakers there came from somewhere else.

RCUer75345

Except Franklin. Franklin thinks models are "toys". Something we should have outgrown by the age of 18, presumably. Something that should be so harmless that no one could possibly be injured by it.

Franklin's approach is exactly like a gun ban advocate: He wants them all, but he'll take what he can get at each step. He will exploit natural divisions within the community to set modelers at odds with "droners", and against each other. First he'll go after the sailplanes and larger models that need higher altitude limitations to operate. Then the faster planes that need wider boundaries. Finally the park fliers and anything homemade. At each step he'll wave the safety flag and quote selectively chosen facts in order to make his approach seem reasonable, hoping that most of us will sacrifice the few in order to protect the many. But at the end of the day he wants them all.

And I don't begrudge him that. He's free to advocate for anything he wants. A man has to feed the family and an O-5's retirement pay doesn't go that far, unless you live in the "middle of nowhere" like some of us do. If he's being paid to advocate certain positions, hey it's a free country. I just wish he'd be honest about the true motivation.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Well, they are! It may be unfortunate, but I believe that Franklin's stance, while they have ALWAYS been toys, is even more relevant now that the FAA is in charge. Like it or not, the fact is that we are talking about sharing the NAS with ALL aircraft. In that heirarchy, our planes ARE toys! That is a FACT and cannot be refuted, no matter what your opinion is, or how passionate you might be about your toys, they are still toys.

First, I don't believe that anybody ought to be at odds with anybody. Differing opinions? sure! At odds? NO!
The concept of modelers vs. droners has received much attention in recent years, and I believe is very much misunderstood. While I know that there ARE some that despise multi-rotors and drones, I believe it is a miniscule minority. I believe the division should be made between traditional and drones where their capabilities demand that they affect the NAS differently. Again, this is a FACT and should be addressed accordingly. No need to cast dispersion on one or another, they just need to be treated differently because they ARE DIFFERENT!
For the sake of keeping the peace in the forums, don't hate the player, hate the game. If you step back and look at how you and Franklin go back and forth, it is very clear that you have differing opinions (many of Franklin's opinions are supported by facts, mind you and should not be challenged, unless you have a different set of facts to refute his!), please just let the differing opinions be just that, differing opinions. If you MUST try to change the others' mind, do it with facts and stay away from the personal crap!

I believe that he HAS been honest about his true motivation! He is concerned about the safe integration of models into the NAS and with that, that all who particiapate in model aviation should have equal access to that NAS, without regard to CBO affiliation. It's not that hard to see, really. If you were to take a step back and see the forest for the trees, you might actually see that it is YOUR beliefs and opinions that are actually MORE biased than Franklin's!

I hope you are able to read my post for what it is and realize that while I DID ask you to take an honest look at you and your beliefs, motivations, statements, etc., I did not personally attack you or cast a dispersion on you, so please do not do what I have seen you do with those that don't necessarily type what you like and retaliate.

Thank-You!

Reagrds,

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

In an attempt to stay within the facts as you have asked. Traditional model airplanes have a proven safety record. Clearly there are fewer accidents resulting in injury or death then most any other outdoor activity. Secondly, there is not a single reported incident that I am aware of a traditional model airplane bringing down a manned aircraft. This coupled with the fact that our aircraft are considered " toys " why on earth is the agency that oversees manned aircraft now regulating our toys? Does NASA regulate model rocketry? For somone to go through all this work without being appointed to do so in the name of safety where the activity has a proven safety record IMO is questionable as to motive. Yes that last part is opinion however I see no issues with forming opinion based on fact.


I have no problem with the providing a flying environment for everyone regardless of member of CBO or not. That still brings us to the issue of liability insurance. So far nobody has produced a workable solution to that issue. Stating what the AMA spends per member is NOT providing a solution. Homeowners insurance would only be an option if it were possible to provide verification that the policy is active and includes model airplane coverage each and every trip to the flying site. Not only would I not want to to provide paperwork each trip but that would be an unreasonable burden on club/site staff. As of yet, nobody has produced any figures of what a comparable policy would cost both individuals and the site. In the sake of presenting " the Facts " unless someone has actual insurance rates that shows better coverage or cheaper rates then what the AMA is giving us I don't see how one can claim that it is not a good value.

RCUer75345

On the one hand -- if recreational aircraft are toys -- then models are in good company. Ultralights are "toys". The Cessna 150s and 172s I used to fly are "toys". And airshow aerobatic planes, warbirds, and bizjets are "toys" for big kids with a lot more money than I have.

On the other hand -- the FAA "gets it". FAR Part 107 does NOT refer to model aircraft as "toys". It calls them small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS). Operators are Pilots In Command (PICs) just as they are in the full-scale world. Might be a little pretentious, yes. But at least the FAA understands that if you expect people to behave in a professional manner there's no harm in giving them a little professional respect. You don't belittle them in order to put them in their place.

I've made it clear that I don't hate the player. I've repeatedly stated that I recognize Franklin has every right to advocate for whatever position he chooses. Sure, I've argued forcefully and passionately and will continue to do so. I ask you to recall that Franklin "welcomed" me here with an allegation that I was either a banned individual returning under a new name, or a tool of AMA headquarters. I am neither of those things; I am a longtime hobbyist who just wants his pastime left alone.

Since Franklin has cast aspersions on my motivations, and that's apparently OK with the moderators -- I see no reason I shouldn't inquire about his. We should all be bound by the same rules here. Shouldn't we?

Certainly not! I appreciate your wishes for reasonableness and decorum.

franklin_m

National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) labels them as "Toy vehicles (excl. riding toys)" for the purpose of capturing injury data. Whether I use "toy vehicle" or "toy airplane" or "toy," is de minimis. As you're clearly not riding in or on them, my use of "toy airplane" is accurate.


To the contrary:

Class G: I believe there should be a national 400 AGL limit and a prohibition against operations inside the lateral limits of Military Training Routes during published hours of operation. Flight above 400 AGL up to 100 feet below class E would be allowed provided there is a co-located dedicated spotter (note 1) AND the aircraft flight is reported to the FAA via a LAANC like process. With ATC approval, flight above those limits would be allowed for limited duration special events on a NOTAM.

Controlled Airspace: 400 AGL or the published LAANC limit whichever is lower. With written ATC agreement or LAANC approval, flight above that would be permitted with dedicated spotter (note 1).


In explaining your rather specific knowledge of my posting history, you explained that you're along time lurker. Thus you've surely seen my prior statementst that I'm not paid by anyone to advocate for my beliefs. In fact, my only pay for any RC related piece of writing was for a Model Airplane News article I wrote on tower notifications. So please cite proof that I'm being paid to advocate. If you cannot, then continued statements to that effect are nothing but personal attacks intended to troll. Be wary of the latter, less speedy report you for trolling. Or is it ok to troll when it's done TO someone who's not an AMA supporter?

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

The FAA oversees the NAS. Our toys operate in the NAS. FACT.
Do toy rockets reach outer space? Does NASA regulate "space"? No. Analogy doesn't work. Sorry.
What issue about liability insurance? Has the FAA said ANYTHING aout having insurance? Not to my knowledge. This is an old-school hurdle that the AMA (by nature of essentially having a monopoly on the rc insurance thing!) has created. Currently, I am breaking no laws by flying my model without any insurance.
I didn't say it was (solution to what, BTW?).
Who claimed that the price we pay for the insurance portion of our dues is not good value? I personally think it is. What I DON'T think is good value, is how the AMA grossly failed to advocate for the majority of its' membership (traditional flyers) with the remainder of my dues.

Astro

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Don't be fooled that because the FAA gave our toys an official designation, that they think that they are any more relevant than they were. You can put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig. Rest assured this sUAS thing is just a PIA of the FAA. Other than to insure the safety of their NAS, the FAA wants nothing to do with our toys! It has nothing to do with them all of a sudden, "giving us a little professional respect".

Astro

franklin_m

You cite that not one has been brought down. That means it is acceptable to you that at least one manned aircraft must be brought down before FAA can act. Please share with us just how many aircraft being "brought down" is acceptable to you before FAA can act. We know it's at least one, I just think you should be honest about how many YOU think need to happen before FAA can act.

My point is that for once the FAA is trying to act BEFORE a manned aircraft is "brought down." There have been several high risk near misses, and aviation safety operates on the basis of taking actions on near misses (leading indicators) to prevent a mishap (lagging indicator).


I'm confused. Others in these forums are concerned with the use of the word "toy" to describe them. So which is it? Are they aircraft, in which case some greater level of professionalism (in operations, maintenance, and policy) is warranted, or are they "toys" that should be regulated under consumer safety processes?

NASA is an independent federal agency without regulatory authority. However, the Department of Transportation, via their subordinate agency the Federal Aviation Administration, does indeed regulate model rocketry, see FAR 101.22 (note 1) and other documents (note 2).

Good. We agree.

And right there you conveniently add another criteria that must be met, one that is not defined. Apparently you and you alone get to decide what is and is not "workable?" Perhaps you could help us by defining the criteria you deem "workable" and then let us figure out how to meet it. Or is it that you just want to always be able to declare something "unworkable" as a way of saying nothing is acceptable?

Why not? You later add paperwork, but again it is based on a standard known to you and you alone. So like above, please share with us what you deem acceptable. Or is that, like the "unworkable" allegation above, something you will not define so you can always level it without challenge at anything you don't like?

AMA has stated each and every year for the last decade exactly what they spend on insurance. It's a line item on their IRS 990 filings. Unless they're not reporting their "insurance" spending accurately to the IRS, that is what they spend. Once you have that number, it's an exceedingly simple calculation to determine what percentage of member revenue or total revenue goes to that expense. And that number is historically less than 18%. So out of every $75 sent to AMA, at most $13.50 a year goes to insurance. The remaining $61.50 is spent on other things. Oh, and that number is probably high, as AMA "insurance" expense likely covers insurance beyond what covers member flying (fire theft vandalism for Muncie, personal injury at Munice, etc.).


Note 1: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...=14:2.0.1.3.15
Note 2: Chapter 31. Rocket and Launch-Vehicle Operations

RCUer75345

Altitude limits are not addressed in the Remote ID NPRM, so once again you are trying to change the subject. What concerns me more is this remark:

Someone mentioned setting up a failsafe mode which would essentially cause the model to enter a descending spiral with power off. OK, fine; but loss of signal is only one kind of loss of control. There are other failure modes (such as the receiver battery becoming disconnected on a gas powered model) which will leave the aircraft flying straight and level. And if the model is inherently stable and well trimmed, it will continue flying until fuel exhaustion. Therefore the flight path after loss of control is not predictable.

Therefore: If your specification is taken literally then the minimum required flying site size is a circle whose radius is the model's maximum range at cruising speed with a full fuel load. And no non-participant can be outside a protective area within that radius when a model is to be flown. It's either that, or models have to be so small and slow that TE is not a factor.


As you said to me: If that's your story, so be it. I'm skeptical. If you want no further allusions about your motivations, I had better not see any more about mine.

franklin_m

Simple, just add a return spring on the throttle.

Again, FAA expects you to already be taking steps to ensure this does not impose undue risk if something as simple as a battery becomes disconnected. Not only is that a very concerning single point of failure on a large and obviously higher risk toy, to not add redundancy and something as simple as a throttle return spring would seem rather cavalier were I the investigator.

Ok. Keep making the allegations then. I'll let your exceedingly good knowledge about posts dating back years speak for themselves. Others have picked up on it as well. So clearly I'm not alone in the suspicion.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Franklin and grognard,

Please take your back and forth to the proper thread. This one is about how the EAA gets the distinct differences between drones and traditional craft yet the AMA does not, despite being the obvious choice to be experts on all RC flying things, and how they missed the boat early on with the FAA by not simply providing their knowledge to help steer legislation and protect the aspect of this hobby that really has (no matter how you spin it, albeit with a few exceptions) had an exemplary safety record where it comes to playing safe in the NAS. In all reality, traditional modeling is no more or less dangerous today than it has been for the last 80 years, so a lot of this hullabaloo over traditional model operations is rather silly and in reality, won't dramatically (or marginally for that matter!) make traditional modeling activities, or commercial aviation on iota safer.

Regards,

Astro

franklin_m

AMA has touted their relationship with the EAA, and yes the EAA does seem to get the difference between MRs and "traditional." But it appears that EAA may not be the full throated supporter of whatever AMA wants. Read this statement from EAA again:

Note that it does not say "member of a community-based organization," it says those operating under the guidelines of one. A plain language read of the above would not mean that the CBO must request the FRIA, but that ANY citizen could. I support that conceptually, those I don't see FAA ever agreeing to it, as that would lead to thousands of additional FRIAs. I can't see FAA supporting MORE of the FRIAs, as it's their clear goal to limit numbers and eventually eliminate FRIAs all together.

RCUer75345

Except that -- some are using the "hullabaloo" as an opportunity to tighten restrictions on traditional model aviation to an absurd degree. Arguably "safer", yes. But it's a bit like boiling the patient to cure a bacterial infection...

franklin_m

"The record clearly demonstrates that the speed, size and weight of the model airplanes and jets have increased over the past five decades to characteristics where safety needs to be the primary concern."

- MEMORANDUM OPINION BY HONORABLE JULIA K. HEARTHWAY, Judge