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

Paying for mediocrity - your AMA dollar

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

Paying for mediocrity - your AMA dollar

Old 11-19-2020, 02:31 PM
  #76  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,353
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by jester_s1 View Post
Separating multi rotors and RC airplanes and helicopters simply wasn't going to happen.
Nobody, not even once, ever suggested separating multirotors, RC fixed-wing and helicopters. It has always been about separating drones from traditional RC craft. The concern from the public as well as the other users of the NAS has ONLY been about drones, not traditional RC craft. For 80 years, traditional RC craft have shared the NAS with virtually zero issues. It wasn't until the advent of the drone that concerns were raised. That is precisely why the AMA should have clearly, definitively and decisively created clear separation and make it clear to the FAA that it was the drones that caused the concern, not traditional models. At that juncture, it would have been a simple concept to convey, but they chose instead to embrace the drones. It was a critical and fatal mistake.

Others here continue to say that the FAA always considered them one in the same and I say it was the AMA's job (at that time, a decade ago) to kindly show them the facts of why they are not the same and how they affect the NAS in distinctly different ways. I also happen to disagree with those who say the FAA sees and always has seen them as one in the same because I have read a couple of different quotes from FAA folks who say they do understand the differences...

Originally Posted by ester_s1
It would have been sensible to define the difference as having a camera or autonomous flight capability or not, but even then the public would have probably still been nervous.
Yes, I agree, it would not only have been sensible to define the differences, it was CRUCIAL. Once the differences were defined it would have been easy to calm the public, as traditional RC craft are traditionally flown at established flying fields, or in LOS at public areas, not hovering around where the pilot is nowhere to be found.

Originally Posted by jester_s1
I kinda figured when it all started that regulating model planes was probably something they'd been wanting to do for years but didn't have a good enough reason yet. Yes, that's pure conjecture on my part, but you've gotta figure the FAA would have been thinking about that as soon as RC tech became practical in the 70's. I know I would if I had that kind of responsibility on me.
I appreciate you defining that statement as pure conjecture because I believe that the FAA doesn't want to have anything to do with any of this, but they were forced into it due to the proliferation of commercial drone use and the future of autonomous drone delivery.

Regards,

Astro
Old 11-19-2020, 02:33 PM
  #77  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,353
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Propworn View Post
Dick I believe the Junkie isn't evan an AMA member yet he feels a right to tell them how they should be running the business LOL
Who's evan?
Old 11-19-2020, 02:39 PM
  #78  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,353
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey View Post
Conjecture.

I can tell you they always considered us one and the same
As I have stated numerous times, it was the AMA's job to show them the differences. The differences are distinct and are easily defined, as well as being able to show how they affect the NAS in distinctly different ways. 80 years of traditional modeling with almost ZERO incidents in the NAS, vs the recent mass hysteria and hype once drones came into the fold.

The AMA chose to romance the drones and it was their single biggest (and probably fatal) mistake. Ironic how things have turned on them for making that decision. The AMA leadership thought it would fatten their coffers and catapult them into some kind of exalted position of power for all things drone, but it is proving to have had the exact opposite effect.

Astro
Old 11-19-2020, 02:45 PM
  #79  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,692
Received 15 Likes on 12 Posts
Default

Gee , maybe we should have had M.A.A.C. negotiate with the FAA for us , since Dennis (Propworn) is always bragging about how great of a deal M.A.A.C. got with the Canadian air transport officials ....
Old 11-19-2020, 03:10 PM
  #80  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,902
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes on 33 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
Gee , maybe we should have had M.A.A.C. negotiate with the FAA for us , since Dennis (Propworn) is always bragging about how great of a deal M.A.A.C. got with the Canadian air transport officials ....
But you also have to look at the differences in what the FAA and the Canadian equivalent have to deal with:
  • A majority of the Canadian population lives in two areas, British Columbia and within a couple of hundred miles of Montreal. Granted, there are cities and towns scattered between and out to the Atlantic coast but nothing like Minneapolis/St Paul, Kansas City, St Louis, Dallas, Denver, Chicago, etc
  • Few of the Canadian airports outside of the areas mentioned above are more than regional airports. The amount of flights through these airports are significantly less than what goes through the airports in the US cities listed above
  • THE POPULATION OF ALL OF CANADA IS LESS THAN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • THE POPULATION OF CALIFORNIA IS IN AN AREA OF 404,000 SQUARE KILOMETERS(156,000 SQUARE MILES) WHILE THE POPULATION OF CANADA IS IN AN AREA OF ALMOST 10,000,000 SQUARE KILOMETERS(3,855,000 SQUARE MILES). THAT MEANS CANADA HAS 247 TIMES MORE ROOM THAN CALIFORNIA FOR LESS PEOPLE TO LIVE IN
When you look at what the Canadian equivalent of the FAA has to deal with, it's a no brainer on why MAAC is able to get favorable results when negotiating with the government. This is something that the sole MAAC representative in the forum has never bothered to mention, Canada has 3.76 people per square kilometer while California has 97.8 people per square kilometer. Now, let's compare all of the the US to Canada:
  • The US has 328,200,000 people
  • The US has an area of 9,834,000 square kilometers(just under 3.8 million square miles), just under the area of Canada but, what must be remembered is almost a third of that area is Alaska but, at the same time, Alaska only has 731,500, of which 291,500 live in Anchorage alone
  • THE US HAS 33.4 PEOPLE PER SQUARE KILOMETER, ALMOST 8.9 TIMES THE POPULATION DENSITY OF CANADA

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 11-19-2020 at 04:10 PM.
Old 11-19-2020, 06:37 PM
  #81  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,688
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by FUTABA-RC View Post
Do you have any evidence of this, or is it simply conjecture on your part?
Yep. An fair number of colleagues, COs, etc. from my time in uniform that have moved to the civilian side. For obvious reasons I'm not going to quote names. Suffice to say more than a few inside FAA. The rest are spread among other departments and professional staffs. Did you not stop to think how I was able to easily get the infamous "and" changed to remove all doubt "or?" I guess not.

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey View Post
Conjecture.

I can tell you they always considered us one and the same
False. FAA was more than happy to treat them separately until AMA decided to embrace them as part of the family. My source said they looked and that act and thought to themselves how could they be so stupid? Taking away any ability to draw a clear distinction. And from there it's been one loss after another. Lost on registration. Lost on interpretation of 336 as requiring membership. Lost on preserving 336. Lost on preventing operational limits. Need I go on? And all for droners that never joined. Well done AMA. Time for a golf clap for all the "pretty smart" people making those decisions.
Old 11-19-2020, 06:38 PM
  #82  
jester_s1
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 7,095
Likes: 0
Received 20 Likes on 17 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
Yes, I agree, it would not only have been sensible to define the differences, it was CRUCIAL. Once the differences were defined it would have been easy to calm the public, as traditional RC craft are traditionally flown at established flying fields, or in LOS at public areas, not hovering around where the pilot is nowhere to be found.
Astro
That's where we will probably have to agree to disagree. Crucial or not, helpful or not, or even good idea or not, I don't think the case was winnable that "drones" and traditional RC planes and helicopters were fundamentally different enough to warrant a different set of regulations. The smartest strategy was to argue for rules that considered them all the same and kept things good for AMA members. Obviously if one thinks it was possible to make that case convincingly one's perspective will change on the AMA's decision.
Old 11-19-2020, 07:10 PM
  #83  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,353
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by jester_s1 View Post
That's where we will probably have to agree to disagree. Crucial or not, helpful or not, or even good idea or not, I don't think the case was winnable that "drones" and traditional RC planes and helicopters were fundamentally different enough to warrant a different set of regulations. The smartest strategy was to argue for rules that considered them all the same and kept things good for AMA members. Obviously if one thinks it was possible to make that case convincingly one's perspective will change on the AMA's decision.
I already cited the very clear evidence of the fundamental differences:

For 80 years, traditional RC craft (yes, including multi-rotors and helicopters!) were operated unregulated with almost ZERO issues in the NAS.
Drones arrived on the scene and concerns emerged, both from citizens who had privacy and safety concerns, as well as incursions and close-calls with full-size, manned aircraft.

Pretty simple, really.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree, but can you really not see how convincing (and obvious) that is?

Astro

Last edited by astrohog; 11-19-2020 at 07:13 PM.
Old 11-19-2020, 08:34 PM
  #84  
jester_s1
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 7,095
Likes: 0
Received 20 Likes on 17 Posts
Default

Yes, I can see it fine. My point was that the public at large and the FAA wasn't going to see it that way. I agree with you that separating the two would have made sense. I simply don't believe the FAA would have gone for that.
Old 11-19-2020, 08:44 PM
  #85  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,353
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by jester_s1 View Post
Yes, I can see it fine. My point was that the public at large and the FAA wasn't going to see it that way.
I'm curious, if both of us (and many others) see it clearly, what leads you to believe that the public and the FAA wouldn't?

Astro
Old 11-19-2020, 08:48 PM
  #86  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,902
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes on 33 Posts
Default

Sorry, Jester, but I think they would have. The problem was when the AMA went after the drone fliers, it put itself at odds with the perception of the public and, unfortunately, Congress. When the public started seeing drones where they had never been seen R/Cs before, they started looking at their own safety and privacy, reenforced by media calling out the drones and putting all R/C aircraft under the drone mantra. This, in turn, forced Congress to require new policies to keep the constituents from voting the members of Congress out of office. This is where the AMA had to make a choice:
  1. Try to force drone fliers into the fold by getting the FAA to make rules that required membership to fly
  2. Distance itself from the drones fliers and make sure lawmakers knew the difference.
We all know what the EC chose to do, try to bring drone fliers into the fold and, by doing so, increase its treasury. By doing so, the EC set the AMA on a course that put it at odds with everyone, including some of the membership. That being the case, the only ones the AMA can blame is the AMA EC

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 11-19-2020 at 09:13 PM.
Old 11-19-2020, 10:08 PM
  #87  
FUTABA-RC
 
FUTABA-RC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 933
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

For those that insist it was AMA embracing drones that caused the FAA to come down on us, let's look back at this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngog...h=56de45c91f47

Models are unmanned aircraft.

Section 336 was an attempt to exclude models from regulation, and it worked for a time. Section 349 attempts to do the same but adds significant restrictions not present in 336.

And I concur that the AMA screwed up massively by not making the distinction more clearly, but in the end the way both sections are written makes it impossible to see that difference in a legal sense.

And the soon to be released RID final rule will be the final nail in our coffin. Ironically making 349 the least of our worries.
Old 11-19-2020, 10:33 PM
  #88  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,902
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes on 33 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by FUTABA-RC View Post
For those that insist it was AMA embracing drones that caused the FAA to come down on us, let's look back at this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngog...h=56de45c91f47

Models are unmanned aircraft.

Section 336 was an attempt to exclude models from regulation, and it worked for a time. Section 349 attempts to do the same but adds significant restrictions not present in 336.

And I concur that the AMA screwed up massively by not making the distinction more clearly, but in the end the way both sections are written makes it impossible to see that difference in a legal sense.

And the soon to be released RID final rule will be the final nail in our coffin. Ironically making 349 the least of our worries.
Okay, the NTSB said anything that flies is an aircraft and subject to FAA regulations. Isn't the NTSB the organization that investigates aircraft crashes and recommends changes, either to policy, procedure or design to prevent another? Where does that give the NTSB the authority to overrule a court judge? If you take the policy of anything man made that flies is an aircraft to the letter, that means balloons and kites would also be considered aircraft, even though they are sold as toys. A helium or hydrogen filled balloon will easily exceed 10,000 feet before the rubber expands to the point of failure. A kite can, under ideal conditions, also top several thousand feet as long as the string(s) are long enough. Does that mean we need to register kites and balloons with the FAA as well?
Old 11-20-2020, 02:52 AM
  #89  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,688
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by FUTABA-RC View Post
For those that insist it was AMA embracing drones that caused the FAA to come down on us, let's look back at this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngog...h=56de45c91f47

Models are unmanned aircraft.
How can you say that? The article clearly notes that "Since there is no chance of FAA drone rules being published in the near future, it is now up to Congress to determine whether it wants every model aircraft regardless of size to be regulated by the FAA's rules for manned aircraft (emphasis added)."

My read of that indicates that the exact opposite is true, that FAA had not yet reached such a conclusion.
Old 11-20-2020, 05:47 AM
  #90  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,353
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
My read of that indicates that the exact opposite is true, that FAA had not yet reached such a conclusion.
EXACTLY! That ruling was also one of the first drone cases that made the headlines (certainly the most notorious at that time). That case in and of itself should have been the BIG RED FLAG that warned the AMA against embracing the drones. That case should have been used as a catalyst for the AMA to create separation from the drones. Simple, really.

Astro
Old 11-20-2020, 06:04 AM
  #91  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,353
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by FUTABA-RC View Post
Models are unmanned aircraft.
ALL of them are now, thanks to the AMA. It could have been different, had the AMA simply worked to show that there are different types of unmanned aircraft that affect the NAS in vastly different ways and as such, should be regulated differently.

Originally Posted by FUTABA-RC
Section 336 was an attempt to exclude models from regulation
Yet it did not distinguish models from drones and here we are, lumped in together....

Originally Posted by FUTABA-RC
And I concur that the AMA screwed up massively by not making the distinction more clearly, but in the end the way both sections are written makes it impossible to see that difference in a legal sense.
Which does absolutely NOTHING for the dues-paying AMA membership!
The current environment really doesn't offer any kind of long-term security for those of us who have purchased property for the purpose of providing a safe, responsible place for folks to gather and enjoy flying toy airplanes, away from the complaining public and airports. For 30+ years, the field we own has been responsible for a MINIMUM of 75 AMA members per year. The AMA spent ZERO dollars on the property, improvements, taxes, maintenance, etc., yet they certainly reaped the rewards from all of those dues-paying members all those years. You would think the AMA would understand their responsibility to advocate for all those folks who invested their own blood, sweat, tears and $$.

Astro
Old 11-20-2020, 07:14 AM
  #92  
FUTABA-RC
 
FUTABA-RC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 933
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
ALL of them are now, thanks to the AMA. It could have been different, had the AMA simply worked to show that there are different types of unmanned aircraft that affect the NAS in vastly different ways and as such, should be regulated differently.
Incorrect. Models are sUAS thanks to the Pirker case.

Once that happened we were pretty much toast.
Old 11-20-2020, 07:18 AM
  #93  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 24,405
Received 69 Likes on 58 Posts
Default

And Pirker was flying an airplane, not a drone/quad
Old 11-20-2020, 07:24 AM
  #94  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,353
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey View Post
And Pirker was flying an airplane, not a drone/quad
He was flying FPV BLOS, NOT in accordance with traditional model. DRONE.

Astro
Old 11-20-2020, 07:26 AM
  #95  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,353
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by FUTABA-RC View Post
Incorrect. Models are sUAS thanks to the Pirker case.

Once that happened we were pretty much toast.
Sorry, I disagree. sUAS=unmanned, potato, potahtoe.....

Astro
Old 11-20-2020, 07:54 AM
  #96  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 24,405
Received 69 Likes on 58 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
He was flying FPV BLOS, NOT in accordance with traditional model. DRONE.

Astro
For sure, popular thought was he was flying a quad and that quads are different than "traditional planes'

As you say he was flying BLOS and via FPV which made it non-recreational.
Old 11-20-2020, 10:12 AM
  #97  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,353
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey View Post
As you say he was flying BLOS and via FPV which made it non-recreational.
And a DRONE!

Astro
Old 11-21-2020, 08:48 AM
  #98  
FUTABA-RC
 
FUTABA-RC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 933
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
Sorry, I disagree. sUAS=unmanned, potato, potahtoe.....

Astro
Disagree all you want, but US law and the FAA say that is the case. Model airplanes and helicopters are sUAS.
Old 11-21-2020, 10:45 AM
  #99  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,353
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by FUTABA-RC View Post
Disagree all you want, but US law and the FAA say that is the case. Model airplanes and helicopters are sUAS.
Yes, UNMANNED...

The sUAS definition was created AFTER and BECAUSE the AMA failed to advocate for any distinction between unmanned model aircraft and unmanned drones.

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that?

Astro

Last edited by astrohog; 11-21-2020 at 10:49 AM.
Old 11-21-2020, 05:10 PM
  #100  
FUTABA-RC
 
FUTABA-RC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 933
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

Because your timeline and view of the history is simply incorrect. Not that it matters one little bit to our current situation.

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.