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

AMA letter to FAA, have you READ IT?

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

AMA letter to FAA, have you READ IT?

Old 02-29-2020, 09:28 PM
  #26  
tedsander
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: White Bear lake, MN
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
The problem isn't the FRIA being operated by a private entity, it's the AMA chartered club part. The AMA is thinking that new flyers will be required to join their ranks if they want to stay in the activity and the regulations that are being proposed will force it by law.
There is nowhere anything written that forces you to join AMA ranks, anymore than now. A CBO will be the one to request a FRIA. The current definition of a CBO is very broad and vague. With no better definition or process defined, as it stands a small to very small group could be eligible to become a CBO and request a FRIA. And if they want, they can let anyone fly, at no cost. Yes, that will likely change when the CBO application process finally comes out. One can't jump to conclusions at this point. The AMA may fervently hope that new flyers join their ranks, but it is a step too far into tin hat territory to characterize it as a plot to force people into joining.
The reality is that likely most new CBO's will make a member pay something, somehow. There will be costs. Lawnmower gas at the minimum.
Like it or not, the free ride for the park flyers is over. Pay somebody for a nice place to fly, or pay for some kind of RemoteID implementation.
The fight is about how to stop the impending shut down of the entire hobby - FRIA's, contests, events, businesses, model building, et al.
Old 03-01-2020, 04:53 AM
  #27  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by tedsander View Post
There is nowhere anything written that forces you to join AMA ranks, anymore than now.
In the NPRM, the FAA admits that the pool of likely FRIAs are AMA fields. And since AMA "programming" requires membership to fly from one of their fields, then the rule all but forces membership in a PRIVATE dues collecting organization for individuals to operate non-RemoteID compliant sUAS in the PUBLIC airspace. That would be exactly like DOT saying that if you own an antique car, you can only drive on certain roads and ONLY if you are a AAA member.

Secondly, if indeed one must be a member to use the FRIAs, AMA by-laws allow them to ban individuals or refuse membership. This has the effect of ceding to a PRIVATE dues collecting organization authority to take action against private citizens, with no Federal due process protections. What happens if the often lamented petty politics enter into things and AMA expels someone? That effectively restricts a private citizen's access to public airspace, which is an inherently governmental function. Yet it can happen completely outside any protections of agency due process procedures.

Third, what about FRIAs that are "no MRs," or "no helicopters," or "no 3D?" This also cedes to a private organization not just control of access to the public airspace, but also regulatory control over what citizens can fly in that airspace.
Old 03-01-2020, 05:12 AM
  #28  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
The NPRM requires no such thing.

- In general, flying non-compliant UAS in public airspace is prohibited after the grace period expires. Such aircraft will be restricted to FRIAs.
- A FRIA operated by a private entity (such as an AMA chartered club) is analogous to a PRIVATE airport. Only the owner, and others invited by the owner, have the right to operate there. This is true NOW (without Remote ID) and will be the SAME with Remote ID. "The public" cannot reasonably claim to have lost privileges it never had in the first place.

If "the public" would like to continue to fly outside FRIAs without Remote ID, it would be better to lobby for higher weight thresholds for registration for fixed-wing UAS flown within VLOS for "limited recreational" purposes. That's a change I could support - and included in my comments.
Yes it does. In your full scale example of private airports, you neglect to note that there are ample alternative sites from which to operate. One owner of an individual private airport saying "no" has a de minimis impact on an individual part 61 operator. Not only are there other private airports, there are a plethora of public airports. There are no such alternatives to FRIAs, for a singular organization will control the overwhelming majority of sites where a citizen can fly non-compliant equipment. The FAA even admits as such, in their discussion of the 3000 AMA fields. So for your analogy to be accurate, it would require that ALL private airports be controlled by one person or organization. That is clearly not the case, so the analogy fails. And because one organization will enjoy near monopolistic control over access to FRIAs, one is in fact compelled to become a member of a PRIVATE dues collecting organization in order to operate non-RemoteID compliant equipment in PUBLIC airspace.

As to losing privilege they never had in the first place, you omit that the government in law and rule making is required to ensure equal protection under the law. That means that you cannot grant privileges to one group based on membership in a PRIVATE dues collecting organization that are not available to ALL citizens that are non-members. With the overwhelming majority of sUAS registrants NOT members of a CBO (by at least 4:1), the rule as written creates two classes of citizens operating non-compliant equipment : those who can afford membership in one or more private dues collecting organizations and those who cannot. It would be like requiring AOPA membership in order to fly from public airports. Or requiring AAA membership to operate on public roadways. If government establishes FRIAs as a way for ALL citizens to operate non-compliant equipment, they cannot as a matter of policy condition that on membership in PRIVATE organizations.

No, the only way to ensure equal protection under the law is to require FRIAs allow operations by ANY citizen without regard to membership in a private dues collecting organization. If insurance is used as an excuse, then under the law they are limited to what members pay for insurance on a pro-rata basis (about $13 of your AMA dues). If membership is required in a local club, then there will need to be due process protections as the club will enjoy ability to limit access to public airspace if petty club dynamics take over.

So you see, there are multiple problems with the FRIA concept, Constitutionally, legally, and administratively. A point I will make to the FAA in my comments in the hopes that they stick a fork in the concept.
Old 03-01-2020, 05:16 AM
  #29  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 24,075
Received 49 Likes on 39 Posts
Default

The fault in your AAA argument you fail to make is the guy without AAA has paid taxes to drive on public roads that were built and maintained for public use with the money he or she paid in said taxes.

Many club fields are financed by the club, maintained by the club with money paid by members of the club for club use. They aren't forced to be an AMA or any other CBO club they choose to be.
Old 03-01-2020, 05:18 AM
  #30  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
In the NPRM, the FAA admits that the pool of likely FRIAs are AMA fields.
No. The FAA used the current number of AMA club fields for the purpose of making a cost estimate. This in no way limits the FAA to recognizing just one CBO -- and it's worth noting that NO CBO's have been recognized by the FAA yet. Including the AMA.

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
And since AMA "programming" requires membership to fly from one of their fields, then the rule all but forces membership in a PRIVATE dues collecting organization for individuals to operate non-RemoteID compliant sUAS in the PUBLIC airspace.
Wrong again, because AMA club fields have NEVER been "public airspace". And nowhere in the NPRM does the FAA claim that the designation "FRIA" implies public accessibility.

Since these two points constitute the foundations of your argument there is nothing to be gained by wasting time addressing your remaining points.

Two days left. Submit comments or be prepared to live with the results.

Old 03-01-2020, 06:09 AM
  #31  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey View Post
The fault in your AAA argument you fail to make is the guy without AAA has paid taxes to drive on public roads that were built and maintained for public use with the money he or she paid in said taxes.

Many club fields are financed by the club, maintained by the club with money paid by members of the club for club use. They aren't forced to be an AMA or any other CBO club they choose to be.
Thank you, as you just illustrated another flaw in the FRIA concept. If the clubs are private, then they have to meet the CBO requirements spelled out in the law. On the other hand, if they're effectively franchizes of ONE large CBO, then the policy for membership and costs needs to be consistent.
Old 03-01-2020, 06:26 AM
  #32  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
The FAA even admits as such, in their discussion of the 3000 AMA fields.
Originally Posted by grognard View Post
No. The FAA used the current number of AMA club fields for the purpose of making a cost estimate.
And that illustrates another flaw in their analysis. Which is that FAA did not consider the $60 million or more in annual membership costs for citizens to use those AMA fields. And that's in addition to whatever clubs charge for mowing the grass. Those kind of numbers will get attention of OMB, that that issue alone could kill the FRIA concept as proposed under the rule.

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
This in no way limits the FAA to recognizing just one CBO -- and it's worth noting that NO CBO's have been recognized by the FAA yet. Including the AMA.
Just because the rule allows for more than one CBO, the government cannot ignore the all but total monopoly enjoyed by one likely candidate, as the impact on citizens is substantial -- $60 million or more in annual membership fees if nothing else.


Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
And since AMA "programming" requires membership to fly from one of their fields, then the rule all but forces membership in a PRIVATE dues collecting organization for individuals to operate non-RemoteID compliant sUAS in the PUBLIC airspace.
Originally Posted by grognard View Post
Wrong again, because AMA club fields have NEVER been "public airspace". And nowhere in the NPRM does the FAA claim that the designation "FRIA" implies public accessibility.
Actually, under the law the airspace above club sites is indeed public airspace. As for whether there is an impliation of public or not, I remind you that the rule is PUBLIC policy governing access to PUBLIC airspace, which the FRIA is one of three options provided for ALL citizens, and the ONLY option for ALL citizens operating non-compliant equipment.


Originally Posted by grognard View Post
Two days left. Submit comments or be prepared to live with the results.
Yep. And given that three of my comments were used by FAA in denying AMA's proposed "AMA number in lieu of registration" under the last rule proposal, I think there's a decent chance my comments may also find their way into the final rule. Why? Because I think that I understand where FAA ( & DoD / DHS) wants to go, I merely give them language they can use to justify taking the action I know they want to take. Not because I'm against the hobby, but because I believe there are things more important than the hobby, namely safety of manned aircraft, people on the ground, and ability to defend against malicious use of the hobby to hurt Americans.

I'm happy to live with the results, I can and join the growing numbers of people leaving the hobby. However, unlike me, I don't think AMA is prepared to live with the results. No matter how it turns out - for the hobby is dying.

Either way, people are leaving the hobby and AMA w/o this rule in place. And AMA getting FRIAs won't save them. It'll drive them away even faster ... if not provide ample financial incentive for companies to speed development of equipment that doesn't require a FRIA. Either way, AMA loses.

Last edited by franklin_m; 03-01-2020 at 06:57 AM.
Old 03-01-2020, 10:57 AM
  #33  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
Not because I'm against the hobby...I'm happy to live with the results, I can and join the growing numbers of people leaving the hobby.
So let's face it -- you're against the hobby. Or anyway you don't give a d___ for it.

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
Either way, AMA loses.
You do seem more obsessed with assuring AMA loses than with coming up with real solutions which would benefit all parties.

Old 03-01-2020, 11:24 AM
  #34  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
I believe there are things more important than the hobby, namely safety of manned aircraft, people on the ground, and ability to defend against malicious use of the hobby to hurt Americans.
Those might be good reasons for additional restrictions on some UAS, especially the types of "drones" the NPRM drafters clearly had in mind. However, those considerations absolutely do NOT justify putting cripplling sanctions on traditional model aircraft flown at fixed sites. Even the FAA recognizes in the NPRM itself that such operations pose minimal risk to manned aircraft.

And any short-term security gains need to be balanced against the significant long-term impacts. Such as reducing the number of students interested in STEM programs leading to careers in science and engineering. Such as reducing the numbers of new aviation students who will go on to careers in commercial aviation -- or even military aviation!

Another Franklin understood the tradeoff well:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
36 hours, folks. Don't let Franklin's points go unchallenged.
Old 03-01-2020, 01:59 PM
  #35  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
I believe there are things more important than the hobby, namely safety of manned aircraft, people on the ground, and ability to defend against malicious use of the hobby to hurt Americans.
Originally Posted by grognard View Post
Those might be good reasons for additional restrictions on some UAS, especially the types of "drones" the NPRM drafters clearly had in mind. However, those considerations absolutely do NOT justify putting cripplling sanctions on traditional model aircraft flown at fixed sites. Even the FAA recognizes in the NPRM itself that such operations pose minimal risk to manned aircraft.
It's not just the risk to manned aircraft, but also people and property on the ground. As we saw from the "fixed site" operations of the Farview Flyers in PA, flying "traditional model aircraft, even the courts agreed that such operations pose a risk to neighbors. Remote ID provides a way for law enforcement and/or FAA to identify the "traditional model aircraft" over someone's land, crops, livestock, equipment, buildings, etc. Then when the AMA fails to control the actions of the "fixed site" flying "traditional model aircraft," as they failed to do with Farview, the property owner has some recourse.

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
And any short-term security gains need to be balanced against the significant long-term impacts. Such as reducing the number of students interested in STEM programs leading to careers in science and engineering. Such as reducing the numbers of new aviation students who will go on to careers in commercial aviation -- or even military aviation!
STEM programs? Yeah right. School districts are struggling to find time to cover what's mandated by their state board of education and the feds, and you think they're going to add something? Especially when they have the logistical challenges of getting students to and from a fixed site? And that is not without cost. And oh, it's highly weather dependent, which means it's not something the can do anytime.

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
36 hours, folks. Don't let Franklin's points go unchallenged.
Challenge away. I can hardly wait to see people argue in favor of forced membership to use FRIAs!
Old 03-01-2020, 02:18 PM
  #36  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 7,524
Received 32 Likes on 32 Posts
Default

It would seem to me that flying from FRIA sites would be the safest to the general public and manned aircraft. The FRIA sites could be added to sectional charts. There are typically no houses nearby ( as opposed to schoolyards/parks ) everyone on site is aware and somewhat in the know of the hazards ( as opposed to a schoolyard/park ) and there is far less opportunity for somone not realizing the hazards wandering into your flying area or perhaps a curious dog that is on a walk with it's owner ( Unlike schoolyards/parks ). Of course I fully expect you to bring up the Fairveiw deal again, ONE club out of 2,500 LOL great example.

Franklin, I suppose you wouldn't mind telling us the location of the schoolyard where you have been flying? A satellite image perhaps? After all you seem to be claiming it is overall safer then AMA club sites right?

BTW, I'm still waiting for that apology for when you accused me of posting a link to your personal info and when you accused me of being Mach5chimchim. Both accusations being proven FALSE. I know I will never get one, but hopefully it makes people realize that if those two accusations were utter BS, how much more that comes from you is BS?
Old 03-01-2020, 03:00 PM
  #37  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
It would seem to me that flying from FRIA sites would be the safest to the general public and manned aircraft. The FRIA sites could be added to sectional charts. There are typically no houses nearby ( as opposed to schoolyards/parks ) everyone on site is aware and somewhat in the know of the hazards ( as opposed to a schoolyard/park ) and there is far less opportunity for somone not realizing the hazards wandering into your flying area or perhaps a curious dog that is on a walk with it's owner ( Unlike schoolyards/parks ). Of course I fully expect you to bring up the Fairveiw deal again, ONE club out of 2,500 LOL great example.
There's Farview (where AMA did nothing for YEARS), there's great video of a 100lb plane nearly hitting the crowd (with AMA EC member present), a video of a turbine plane directly at the crowd, news stories of a turbine plane crashing and spewing "like a flamethrower", and a host of others. FRIAs are going to die off anyway. You really should listen to you beloved AMA's podcast. Particularly the part about where AMA's own consultant says that a substantial change like "removing the sunset provision for FRIAs" would cause a re-opening of the comment period - something AMA's consultant says the FAA wants to avoid. Translation: The FRIAs will sunset per the rule. They'll all go away. No more waivers.

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
Franklin, I suppose you wouldn't mind telling us the location of the schoolyard where you have been flying? A satellite image perhaps? After all you seem to be claiming it is overall safer then AMA club sites right?
There you go again, putting words in my mouth. I never made any claim that where I fly is any more safe, or any less safe, than a fixed site. Nice try.

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
BTW, I'm still waiting for that apology for when you accused me of posting a link to your personal info and when you accused me of being Mach5chimchim. Both accusations being proven FALSE. I know I will never get one, but hopefully it makes people realize that if those two accusations were utter BS, how much more that comes from you is BS?
What will come from me is language to help FAA, DoD, DHS, TSA (and others) take the rule where I know they want it to go. Just like I provided the language they later used to argue why AMA member number would not be used in lieu of registration. And why AMA should not hold registration data.
Old 03-01-2020, 03:09 PM
  #38  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 7,524
Received 32 Likes on 32 Posts
Default

Yes, we are well aware of your crusade to ruin the hobby.
Old 03-01-2020, 03:45 PM
  #39  
R_Strowe
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Franklin,
I am so sorry that I thought you and I were on the same page in this hobby, especially after speaking face to face on the subject.

I now realize that I was completely duped by you, and that because of the AMA's perceived slight against you (not funding an R/C flying site on your military base), that you are now obsessed with the destruction of both the AMA as well as the hobby. It is a shame that you have to be such a petty person, with nothing positive to contribute. I can only hope that your comments are in such a minority that they are heavily outweighed by the positive, constructive comments of the majority.

R_Strowe
Old 03-01-2020, 04:34 PM
  #40  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by R_Strowe View Post
Franklin,
I am so sorry that I thought you and I were on the same page in this hobby, especially after speaking face to face on the subject.

I now realize that I was completely duped by you, and that because of the AMA's perceived slight against you (not funding an R/C flying site on your military base), that you are now obsessed with the destruction of both the AMA as well as the hobby. It is a shame that you have to be such a petty person, with nothing positive to contribute. I can only hope that your comments are in such a minority that they are heavily outweighed by the positive, constructive comments of the majority.

R_Strowe
My motivations are much more complex. I view the safety and security of American at home as infinitely more important than the hobby. That is why I support DoD, DHS, and others in their efforts to get RemoteID for all sUAS ... including "traditional model aircraft."

And as for actions that endanger the hobby, I actually think AMA is doing more harm than good. First by wasting millions of members' hard earned dollars creating "Taj-Muncie" in lieu of fields used by members. Second, by wasting money moving their HQ to the middle of nowwhere instead of keeping it in DC where public policy is made. Third, they abdicate responsibility for keeping clubs compliant with AMA rules, let alone federal rules. That endangers people in the air and on the ground .. a point noted by the courts in Pennsylvania. AMA talks a good game, but despite knowing (or should have known) about dangerous activities for YEARS, the AMA did nothing. Heck, this month's Model Aviation even talks about someone's giant scale plane that had a flyaway, crashing on someone else's property. And finally, AMA crossed a clear bright line with me when they tried to use 336 to imply membership was required. Some deny that they tried, however there's video of the ED saying explicitly that "We believe membership is required..." (or words very close to it. I have the exact quote in a letter somewhere).

The threats out there are real. The threats to people on the ground from "traditional model aircraft" have been noted by courts. And I for one do not want to wait until AFTER there's an event before taking action. Remote ID provides an initial indicator of friend or foe. It allows a landowner to know who is flying over his land, equipment, livestock, etc. It also provides incentive to keep the toy planes over club property and not annex the air over people's homes and farms.

So ultimately, I side with DoD, DHS FAA, and others because once again, I believe safety and security of the nation and its citizens is infinitely more important than the hobby.
Old 03-01-2020, 04:55 PM
  #41  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,189
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

The remote ID wont do anything for safety because anyone with ill intent will simply disable the ID on their UAS or use one without it. I think the FAA and DOD already very well know this and I also think
they know the proposed rules if implemented will destroy the hobby in a few years.
Old 03-01-2020, 05:01 PM
  #42  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 7,524
Received 32 Likes on 32 Posts
Default

Here is what happens when people fly in areas NOT designated for R/C flying.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-...ester-34936739

https://www.911security.com/news/dro...ld-in-car-seat

https://abc7.com/987551/

The proposed rules will do nothing to prevent these incidents. There are already laws in place that if followed none of these children would have been injured. I only pasted links to three, there are many more. Although he dances around the fact, Franklin has many times stated he flies fixed and rotary wing aircraft in a local schoolyard/park within minutes of his home.
Old 03-01-2020, 05:02 PM
  #43  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,219
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 17 Posts
Default

To me, the safety of everyone was put in jeopardy when a drone hit an H-60 Blackhawk over New York, just about dusk. The tough Blackhawk was dented and scraped by the impact and verification of what happened was clearly shown when the Blackhawk landed with parts of a quadcopter were found against a FOD screen in one of the engine air intakes. Add to that all the airborne fire fighter flights that had to be aborted in California, again due to drones, and it becomes clear this is an issue that must be dealt with. Do I agree with the FAA's heavy handed approach? NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST!!!!!!!!!!! But at the same time, I also don't agree with the wording of the present plan that, by association, FORCES AMA MAMBERSHIP to be able to fly any aircraft.
We all know that, per FCC regulations, a transmitter can only put out .5 watts of power. That equates to roughly .75 to one mile of controllable range. Maybe it's time to cut the power output of transmitters included in RTF aircraft in half, reducing range and how much stupidity can be inflicted on society
Old 03-01-2020, 05:16 PM
  #44  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,189
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
To me, the safety of everyone was put in jeopardy when a drone hit an H-60 Blackhawk over New York, just about dusk. The tough Blackhawk was dented and scraped by the impact and verification of what happened was clearly shown when the Blackhawk landed with parts of a quadcopter were found against a FOD screen in one of the engine air intakes. Add to that all the airborne fire fighter flights that had to be aborted in California, again due to drones, and it becomes clear this is an issue that must be dealt with. Do I agree with the FAA's heavy handed approach? NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST!!!!!!!!!!! But at the same time, I also don't agree with the wording of the present plan that, by association, FORCES AMA MAMBERSHIP to be able to fly any aircraft.
We all know that, per FCC regulations, a transmitter can only put out .5 watts of power. That equates to roughly .75 to one mile of controllable range. Maybe it's time to cut the power output of transmitters included in RTF aircraft in half, reducing range and how much stupidity can be inflicted on society
I would only agree to cutting transmitter output power on systems that have auto return home technology if you try to fly out of range.
Old 03-01-2020, 05:23 PM
  #45  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
I also don't agree with the wording of the present plan that, by association, FORCES AMA MAMBERSHIP to be able to fly any aircraft.
Once again, it does no such thing.

The present plan offers three ways to fly after the grace period ends:

- sub 250 gram UAS, which don't even have to be registered
- Remote ID compliant UAS
- Flight within FRIAs

And they're ALL "pay to play". You can either buy a sub-250g UAS (if you don't already own one), buy a Remote ID compliant UAS (when they become available), or pay whatever fees the FRIA happens to charge and fly any kind of UAS. The choice is yours -- there is no compulsion.

Franklin's "equal protection" argument is nothing but a rhetorical strawman.

Old 03-01-2020, 05:23 PM
  #46  
R_Strowe
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
My motivations are much more complex. I view the safety and security of American at home as infinitely more important than the hobby. That is why I support DoD, DHS, and others in their efforts to get RemoteID for all sUAS ... including "traditional model aircraft."

And as for actions that endanger the hobby, I actually think AMA is doing more harm than good. First by wasting millions of members' hard earned dollars creating "Taj-Muncie" in lieu of fields used by members. Second, by wasting money moving their HQ to the middle of nowwhere instead of keeping it in DC where public policy is made. Third, they abdicate responsibility for keeping clubs compliant with AMA rules, let alone federal rules. That endangers people in the air and on the ground .. a point noted by the courts in Pennsylvania. AMA talks a good game, but despite knowing (or should have known) about dangerous activities for YEARS, the AMA did nothing. Heck, this month's Model Aviation even talks about someone's giant scale plane that had a flyaway, crashing on someone else's property. And finally, AMA crossed a clear bright line with me when they tried to use 336 to imply membership was required. Some deny that they tried, however there's video of the ED saying explicitly that "We believe membership is required..." (or words very close to it. I have the exact quote in a letter somewhere).

The threats out there are real. The threats to people on the ground from "traditional model aircraft" have been noted by courts. And I for one do not want to wait until AFTER there's an event before taking action. Remote ID provides an initial indicator of friend or foe. It allows a landowner to know who is flying over his land, equipment, livestock, etc. It also provides incentive to keep the toy planes over club property and not annex the air over people's homes and farms.

So ultimately, I side with DoD, DHS FAA, and others because once again, I believe safety and security of the nation and its citizens is infinitely more important than the hobby.
Then you are frankly on a fools errand. As many have stated here, doing this will do nothing to improve safety or security. To believe that a person(s) who wish to be bad actors, will follow the regulations, operate compliant UAS's and essentially hand LE the evidence to convict them is foolhardy at best. The best this might do is to allow LE to eliminate those who are legal, but then aren't we supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? Yet this NPRM supposes us to all be guilty, records our movements, and hands LE evidence for even the most minor of violations, but I'm sure you could glean that from the NPRM as well as anyone, right?

And since I'm sure that your comprehension and understanding of the NPRM is as good as anyone's (and knowing that none of it will actually prevent what DHS, DOD and FAA want it to), that I will say again that this is really about your desire to exact petty revenge on the hobby for a questionable slight.

R_Strowe
Old 03-01-2020, 05:25 PM
  #47  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 7,524
Received 32 Likes on 32 Posts
Default

Hydro, while I agree that something needs to be done in effort to keep UAS and manned aircraft separated, I feel that the current plan is destined to fail just the same as gun laws have failed. The issue is also not with traditional line of sight models. If I remember correctly you are against the idea that all UAS should be lumped together. If that is the case then it is one more thing we can agree upon. Killing off the hobby will not decrease the number of incidents such as the ones you describe just as stricter gun laws have not reduced the number of shootings. The bad players will continue to be bad players, what congress is forcing the FAA to do is put up a smoke screen that will make the general public think our goverment is doing something to protect them.


limiting TX output would only lead to more crashes and put people more at risk.
Old 03-01-2020, 05:29 PM
  #48  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
So ultimately, I side with DoD, DHS FAA, and others because once again, I believe safety and security of the nation and its citizens is infinitely more important than the hobby.
"infinitely?" Why allow sub-250 gram models then? Or is this Phase 1 - before you confiscate all the registered UAS and reduce the weight limit to, say, 10g? After all, one of those could put an eye out, couldn't it?

Or is this the real motivation?

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
What will come from me is language to help FAA, DoD, DHS, TSA (and others) take the rule where I know they want it to go.
Give the bosses what they want, even if you know it's wrong and won't work.

You, Sir, have sold yourself to the system.

Old 03-01-2020, 05:33 PM
  #49  
R_Strowe
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
To me, the safety of everyone was put in jeopardy when a drone hit an H-60 Blackhawk over New York, just about dusk. The tough Blackhawk was dented and scraped by the impact and verification of what happened was clearly shown when the Blackhawk landed with parts of a quadcopter were found against a FOD screen in one of the engine air intakes. Add to that all the airborne fire fighter flights that had to be aborted in California, again due to drones, and it becomes clear this is an issue that must be dealt with. Do I agree with the FAA's heavy handed approach? NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST!!!!!!!!!!! But at the same time, I also don't agree with the wording of the present plan that, by association, FORCES AMA MAMBERSHIP to be able to fly any aircraft.
We all know that, per FCC regulations, a transmitter can only put out .5 watts of power. That equates to roughly .75 to one mile of controllable range. Maybe it's time to cut the power output of transmitters included in RTF aircraft in half, reducing range and how much stupidity can be inflicted on society
Nowhere in this NPRM is this stated. Yes, you may have to be a member of a CBO under it's language. Also the FAA could create FRIA's on their own, or modelers can convince Forest Preserves as well as Parks Departments to apply for FRIA status as CBO's in their own rights. There is nothing in this NPRM to prevent that.

You could start a CBO as well, and apply for said status.

R_Strowe
Old 03-01-2020, 06:02 PM
  #50  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by R_Strowe View Post
Nowhere in this NPRM is this stated. Yes, you may have to be a member of a CBO under it's language. Also the FAA could create FRIA's on their own, or modelers can convince Forest Preserves as well as Parks Departments to apply for FRIA status as CBO's in their own rights. There is nothing in this NPRM to prevent that.

You could start a CBO as well, and apply for said status.

R_Strowe
One of my comments was a request for extension of the FRIA concept to allow non-CBO entities, including STEM schools and private individuals, to apply for FRIAs. The FAA itself says that model aircraft flown within VLOS at fixed sites are only a minimal risk to manned aircraft. Concentrating UAS traffic at fixed sites also serves security purposes - UAS being flown there are NOT being flown somewhere else. They are also easily observed and tracked - using either Remote ID or other technical means.

"Sticking a fork in FRIAs" on security grounds is the argument of a fool.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.