speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Not claiming that they are but we don't know that they aren't. Both Futaba and JR have the Capitol to be working on something. Historically both are pretty tight lipped until ready to release. Both also have quite large markets here in the US.

Hydro Junkie

Go back and read the second half of the third sentence. Better yet, I'll paste it below:
"they knew what the FAA was planning and could have had compatible receivers already on the market"
If they have them ready, they should be selling them so that people like Speed could be armed and ready when the FAA starts enforcing the law, not scrambling to find receivers that are capable of operating their planes and usable with transmitters already on hand.

ECHO24

And that's more acceptable?

Asking Congress to "punish" 700,000 hobyists destroyed AMA's credibility.
The Hill's target audience are lawmakers and staff.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

if it works the same as the rest of their software updates,
once released, the unit will not arm and fly until the update is performed.
lotta complaints about that among the DJI users.

Hydro Junkie

And that just makes sense. They don't want to be called out for flying when and where they shouldn't be. Heck, that's probably part of the allure of flying drones, you can fly them anywhere without having to worry about getting caught, that is until the system becomes active

franklin_m

What you don't want to acknowledge is that it's the AMA that is the broken record. Their strategy has failed at virtually every step. Their one victory was fleeting, and undone at the very next legislative opportunity.

Whether you care to consider the point or not, keep this in mind. Government agencies are often lazy. They generally don't like spending a lot of staff time and effort if stakeholders come to them stacked hands on a solution they can all live with. For example, as noted above, discussion of significant regulations possibly coming out of FAA has been in EC minutes going back a decade. Especially in the wake of 911, what AMA failed to see was that it wasn't "if" there would be regulations, just rather "when" and how severe.

Had they sat down with other stakeholders and genuinely negotiated, then gone to FAA with a solution aligned among ALPA, DJI, helicopter groups, other low altitude users, law enforcement, DoD, DHS, and even commercial sUAS interests, the FAA would have likely jumped at it. But AMA continued to be the outlier. Pushing their own agenda and clinging like a scared child to this romantic notion of an "impeccable" 80 year safety record.

Unfortunately, there's too many videos of some pretty scary looking events at AMA events. And when other aviation stakeholders query AMA for statistics similar to those kept in every other type of aviation operations, AMA has nothing. That is a serious gap and highlights lack of credibility. For example, the standardized way of tracking mishaps rates is number of mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. I tried to encourage AMA to get serious about it back around 2015 so they'd have that data moving forward. I felt this would earn credibility with other stakeholders by tracking data in the same way they do plus help AMA understand if they're truly as safe as they think they are (that whole leading metric vs. lagging metric thing). This is from when EC minutes were still available outside the members only:
And what we see is that just like happened many times before in the minutes when the issue of creating a credible safety program came up, it went NOWHERE. Fast forward six years and AMA still doesn't have a credible safety program (as viewed by other stakeholders), they still don't have data similar to what other aviation stakeholders track, and they're still trying to make the case that they don't need to be regulated because "they're safe." Well, FAA sees through that, as do all the other stakeholders. I can guarantee that major commercial operators can quote off the top of their heads their mishaps per 100,000 flight hours data. Why? Because it's the standard way of tracking, a standard way that AMA has rejected using. So is it any wonder that regulations are being imposed despite their protestations?

So back to the lazy thing. AMA chose not to give a little early in exchange for shaping the outcome. AMA chose not to establish a credible safety metrics tracking so they could speak in the same language as to why they're as safe as they say they are. And now AMA is yet again reacting to events rather than drive them - all because (IMO) they fail to take the steps necessary to earn credibility. They keep "running to Mom and Dad" (Congress), and going around FAA, which is also something that agencies can't stand.

There's still time, but not much. I'm still willing to help them set up some basic metrics and supporting governance (policy) so they can start gathering data so they're ready to quote their mishaps per 100,000 flight hours - just like everyone else. But it takes time to collect data, and time is a luxury they don't have.

franklin_m

Exactly, and because it's integrated and not easily separable from the rest of the sUAS, they can't easily get a new box and just not update it. I suspect that's why the FAA rejected the add on module approach, they know it's easily changed and thus easily circumvented.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Actually you're wrong. Amazon, Google Air etc support model aviation, we are the pipeline for their future engineers/pilots etc.
Read their comments on the NPRM

fliers1

Agreed. Doesn't Amazon sell RC airplanes, helicopters and equipment?

franklin_m

And yet the types of things they fly are remarkably different than the types of things that "traditional" folks fly. The point being that MR operators don't "need" wide operational limits to learn the craft. They can do it all at less than 100 mph and 400 feet and below. So while "Amazon, Google Air etc support model aviation" in a general sense, there's a lot of important detail left out about the limits of that support.

jcmors

Franklin, out of curiosity and in the context of model aviation what exactly would be considered a record able mishap?

In the full size world, an aircraft landing on the runway tilts in a crosswind, the wing breaks away and the plane is damaged beyond being flight worthy again. That is most definitely a mishap. On a model aircraft field, an RC pilot is bringing his aircraft in for a landing, flairs, lands and during taxiing hits a divet in the ground, noses over and breaks off a wing. This is not a safety issue, we all know there will be some less than perfect landings.

So, would a mishap only be something that happened that would have the potential for causing damage such as landing behind the flight line or into one of the parked cars in the parking lot? Would landing in a neighboring corn field where no damage was done be a mishap? These are serious questions by the way, not criticisms, because I find the concept of having a PROVEN safety record interesting and agree that it would be very helpful to our cause.

Would you record safety violations even though there was no incident such as flight that strayed over and behind the flight line? To do this properly there would have to be standard agreed upon definitions for what constitutes a record able issue. We would need to use the same standards and criteria for all of the club fields

franklin_m

At the core of an effective aviation safety program is tracking of leading metrics. In this context they're most easily understood as events that could have cause significant damage or injury if conditions changed only slightly (or presence of a compounding event). Another way to think of them is "near misses" above some threshold.

So in that case, your example of an aircraft straying behind the flight line would be one such thing thing that I think should be tracked, for a couple reasons. First, the safety line is a fundamental aspect of maintaining safe buffers between participants and non-participants. An aircraft that goes behind the flight line is objectively out of control, because such things should never happen if the aircraft is fully under control. If a result of mechanical problem etc., that is a mitigating factor, and should be tracked as a leading metric as to design, build, radio reliability, operator skill, maintenance issues - but the point is that the safety program says it should never happen even with mechanical failures etc. Second, much like full scale runway incursions ... there's rarely if ever a valid excuse ... and even then the number of incidents and why are still tracked.

As to whether the standards should be the same for all clubs - ABSOLUTELY. That's what makes the data meaningful. But it also requires honesty in reporting. Unfortunately, I see that as a major hobby community cultural barrier. Think of all he wrecked planes that get blamed on "radio glitches," yet objective analysis by manufacturers show these are exceptionally rare. And when they do happen, it's more likely due to installation and location of satellite receivers, shielding, etc.

But say for the sake of argument, AMA "believes" members are reporting honestly. So you're tracking data and now you can look at trends. Say AMA sees data showing safety line incursions in specific areas due to "radio glitches." If you're not seeing them elsewhere, there's either something with these specific fields (EMI) worth investigating, or it could also be a leading indicator of skill based issues, cavalier attitude toward the safety line, or accuracy in reporting. It then allows AMA to target safety resources to address the issue BEFORE something goes behind a safety line AND crashes into something or someone producing a claim (or bad press) - lagging indicators.

As for what defines a "mishap" in front of the safety line. It's really about establishing a reasonable definition and then enforcing reporting based on that definition. I'm not saying this is the definition that must be used, but lets consider it as the definition for the sake of discussion. Say you define a "mishap" as anything that renders the aircraft unflyable except for refuel, recharge, bend landing gear, control throw adjustment, or maybe repair covering (have to think on that for a bit). Idea behind these is that if folks are proficient at flying and landing, they should not be needing to repair their planes every flight. Spikes in data point to skill deficiencies, risky behaviors (high risk flying styles), mechanical issues, field condition issues, etc. - all of which are leading indicators of crashing into someone, something, or bad press. Again, ID behaviors and issues beforehand so they can be addressed and corrected. As for flight times, the actual durations of flights aren't terribly long, one could assume all are 15 minutes. That should give ample cushion in the aggregate, and if anything under-report. But not significantly so. In short, it's close enough. As such, you'd also want to track, for each report, type of aircraft, flying style, etc. Some like 3D may have greater incidents ... which is ok I argue so long as the rate isn't increasing and the events are confined to forward of the safety line and inside the field perimeter for example.

Other metrics I'd recommend would be anytime something crashes off the flying site. In that case, it's getting a window into are we keeping our activities inside our boundaries or inflicting events on neighbors - events that could eventually show up in the press or courts.

Reporting could be web based, with pulldown menus and defined choices to standardize inputs. Of course any crash into someone or something would be recorded as well, though they're lagging for that particular event, they could be leading metrics in the aggregate. For events behind the flightline, or outside club limits, I'd recommend requiring a "why" from a specific list of possible reasons: Radio Issue, Pilot Error, Traffic Avoidance, Distraction, Mechanical, or Other. Start to see too many in one category, and it's a time to dig deeper.

But again, AMA would have to establish supporting policies, governance, and data collection methods (none difficult, I offered to help), but mostly they need to establish the expectation that data will be reported, and that CDs, EMs, clubs, and individuals will be accountable for ensuring reporting is done and done accurately. I'd require district VPs and AVPs to regularly check compliance, analyze trends, and drive corrective actions.

It's not about punishment, it's about correcting little problems before they become big ones. It only becomes punishment if CDs, EMs, club, or individuals do not comply with the program or implement the corrective actions.

Does this help?

rgburrill

^^^This^^^ The FAA deals with probabilities. What could happen is what is important in a safety analysis; what did happen is just backup for it.

Every club should have a safety officer. One of his main duties should be to collect this kind of data. But as has been pointed out it is likely much too late to start now.

jcmors

It does. I was curious about the criteria and how it would be defined. I think the concept of having a provable safety culture would have been very useful during these times of increasing regulation. To be honest I'm not altogether sure there is much that can be done to turn things around at this point however as I have said before I'm certainly willing to try right up until the hobby dies a slow agonizing death over the coming few years. It is absolutely certain at least in my mind that if we do nothing the hobby as we know it will go away entirely 400' and below or otherwise. I would certainly be willing to consider some sort of safety metrics tracking. Perhaps it isn't too late but if not, it is very nearly on the brink.

Personally I believe that the majority of the RC modeling community, at least the people I have met and know, are reasonable people and adhere to safety guidelines and that includes those outside the AMA membership that fly in rural fields. Even there some sort of safety tracking application might be useful to prove that there is a general culture of safety in the community at large..

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

When I talk about a stellar safety record over 80 years, I am mainly speaking to the fact that there have been very few accidents that have involved damage/injury to those that are not participating in the activity itself.

I could care less how many people have cut their fingers from a prop strike, or how many planes crash in the pits, that is an inherent risk of participating in this hobby and we are all aware of and accept those risks every time we are at the field. Those risks only affect those of us that have made the risk/reward decsion to participate or not. I don't think the FAA cares how many cut fingers there have been over 80 years, only how many issues have been caused in the NAS.

From the first sign that our hobby may be under attack from the general public, news media, viral youtube videos, etc., it was clear that there would be a call for scrutiny of our hobby by public officials to answer to the public's concern.

My stance has always been that, for those of us that flew traditional models (LOS) from an established, organized flying field that we either bought, leased, or negotiated the use of for the purpose of flying model aircraft, AND are properly insured and affiliated with a CBO, that we should have been (for the most part) left completely alone and exempted from any new regulations because (although there are no records) the fact is, we have operated in that manner very safely and effectively for decades. That is a fact.
In order to be fair and answer to the concerns of the general public (unfounded or not, it is always in a groups' best interest to listen and discuss to ALL who are opposed in order to find a mutual common ground and compromise that benefits all), it made sense to me almost a decade ago that we (the AMA collectively) advocate for ourselves by documenting existing flying fields, making sure they were indeed "run" by competent members, within the programing of the AMA, and limiting our flying activities to LOS at those fields. Yes, this would have been unfortunate for a minority of the AMA membership who flew from locations other than those established fields, and it most certainly would have created a clear separation from drones and droners (some might even say alienated them), but it would have provided the best possible outcome for the majority of AMA members.

If the AMA had taken that approach, I am confident that AMA members would be operating much like we always have, under provisions similar to what 336 offered, without the fear of what we are facing now.

Astro

Astro

franklin_m

I think the reality is that people outside the hobby (read citizens, media, regulators, and legislators) are not allies, and we need to proceed with that in mind if we're to preserve something close to what we have now. I'm like you, starting to think it is nearing too late. Like I said, I tried to get AMA moving in this direction years ago. The mindset being that it's much better to be able to "prove" you're as safe as you say - using the same types of metrics used in the rest of the aviation industry - rather than rely on rhetoric or lagging indicators that can be heavily influenced by out of court settlements etc. But the "pretty smart" people on the EC and the safety committee decided they knew better.

Now after going through the EC minutes going back to 1998, I see they've been resisting this for a very long time. That is most unfortunate, as like you I think it contributes to the state of affairs today. I'm sure we all wish that proving it wasn't necessary, but like good lawyers often say "It's not about what I believe, but rather what I can prove." And that's where I think AMA falls short.

FUTABA-RC

DJI took a chance, true, but DJI is a business, AMA is not a drone manufacturer. Not sure what the comparison is there. And given that general ill-will in the US government towards Chinese drones, and DJI in particular, I can see why they might want to do what they can to appease the US government.

Of course we will have to wait and see what the final NPRM says, and the equipment standards that the recently announced RID development group come up with before we know if it was a gamble worth taking. Interesting that DJI applied to be one of those development companies and yet were not selected. In all fairness AMA also applied. Both were rejected.

FUTABA-RC

Amazon sells EVERYTHING, so what's your point? I'm willing to bet that the portion of sales of RC equipment is several decimal places to the right of their overall sales as well.

FUTABA-RC

Perhaps. However, once the alphabet security agencies and LEO started pressuring the FAA all bets were off. FAA looks to be coming out with a final rule for RID in record time. Late 2020/early 2021. Security agency pressure is the reason.

fliers1

My point is Amazon has a financial interest in supporting the fixed wing portion of model aviation, albeit a relatively small one as compared to other things they sell.

FUTABA-RC

Fair enough. Still think it is an infinitesimal part of their business. So I guess they don't support RC helicopters (not multirotors with autostabilization and GPS guidance)?

ECHO24

What does Amazon support for model aircraft? (Google supports FRIAs)

I lost Amazon's NPRM comment and can't find it online. Do you happen to have a link or PDF?

*** More correctly, Google supports applications for FRIAs beyond one year. As Google correctly points out,
the 1,000,000+ non-AMA members shut out by the new rule would not physically fit into existing AMA fields.

Hydro Junkie

I think, but don't hold me to this, that Amazon sells many different R/C products. After checking The Amazon website, they sell quads and helicopters, boats and cars, BUT NO AIRPLANES(at least according to the drop down menu)

ECHO24

Amazon shows about 50 RC planes if you type it in.

Hydro Junkie

Okay, I stand corrected. When I typed R/C, I got everything but planes