Paying for mediocrity - your AMA dollar
#76
My Feedback: (1)
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.
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.
Regards,
Astro
#78
My Feedback: (1)
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
#79
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 ....
#80
- 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
- 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.
#81
Thread Starter
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.
#82
Moderator
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
Astro
#83
My Feedback: (1)
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.
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.
#84
Moderator
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.
#86
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:
- Try to force drone fliers into the fold by getting the FAA to make rules that required membership to fly
- Distance itself from the drones fliers and make sure lawmakers knew the difference.
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 11-19-2020 at 09:13 PM.
#87
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.
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.
#88
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.
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.
#89
Thread Starter
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.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngog...h=56de45c91f47
Models are unmanned aircraft.
My read of that indicates that the exact opposite is true, that FAA had not yet reached such a conclusion.
#90
My Feedback: (1)
Astro
#91
My Feedback: (1)
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.
Yet it did not distinguish models from drones and here we are, lumped in together....
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 $$.
Astro
Originally Posted by FUTABA-RC
Section 336 was an attempt to exclude models from regulation
Originally Posted by FUTABA-RC
And I concur that the AMA screwed up massively by not making the distinction more clearly, but in the end the way both sections are written makes it impossible to see that difference in a legal sense.
The current environment really doesn't offer any kind of long-term security for those of us who have purchased property for the purpose of providing a safe, responsible place for folks to gather and enjoy flying toy airplanes, away from the complaining public and airports. For 30+ years, the field we own has been responsible for a MINIMUM of 75 AMA members per year. The AMA spent ZERO dollars on the property, improvements, taxes, maintenance, etc., yet they certainly reaped the rewards from all of those dues-paying members all those years. You would think the AMA would understand their responsibility to advocate for all those folks who invested their own blood, sweat, tears and $$.
Astro
#92
Once that happened we were pretty much toast.
#98