ECHO24

If it wasn't just internet chatter BS you would have called the club secretary and posted the info.

Every insurance company in the US has a website. Post the link.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I MIGHT have gone out of my way to do that IF you had conducted yourself like an adult and didn't resort to the petty name-calling that we see all too often here. You get what you give in life, guess you'll have to do it on your own.

Astro

ECHO24

When spinning a yarn, it gets harder to keep track of the story. The person actually looking for insurance is
R_Strowe. Information on this so-called affordable policy was not posted for R_Strowe because it does not exist.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

And that is simply untrue, no matter how many times you repeat it....

ECHO24

Oh, I don't doubt that the ("group/club" bait-and-switch) has an additional insurance policy as you claimed. It's that it's
a general liability policy for the limited partnership that owns the flying field the club leases (which I had to glean through
the double-talk) and neither "affordable" nor applicable to a club or individual.

That's why you didn't provide any further details to R_Strowe. It's useless information and a false and/or misleading claim.

If you disagree, contact the group/club and post the details of the policy.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Wash, rinse, repeat. Blah, blah, blah.

It is exactly how I described it the first time. Nothing more, nothing less.

Astro

ECHO24

They don't have to look far. Despite the numerous model aircraft references in RaceDayQuads' press release propaganda,
their lawsuit is solely about drones and FPV, per this from Johnathan Rupprecht, one of the attorneys:

"On top of that [FAA secret meetings], the final rule largely ignored a particular group of unmanned aircraft flyers –
the first person viewing drone flyers. All of this forced the hand of the FPV community to strike back in defense of their
constitutional rights and freedoms."

That "particular group of unmanned aircraft flyers" was largely ignored because 90% of what they do is illegal. RaceDayQuauds'
legal position is that wearing FPV goggles is LOS if a person can remove the goggles and "see" their drone (without a spotter),
presumably even if it's a spect in the sky a mile away. That would go over well before a judge.

I'm guessing AMA will be jumping in with both feet.

Retiredat38

So prove it?

But you won't because you can't.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Seems as though I hit a nerve...

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

Has there been any specifics about exactly what their claim is yet? Have they actually filed the lawsuit or just the motion for review? I haven't read through everything posted by RDQ on this topic, but what I have read is long on rhetoric and short on details.

To be clear, I hope that they do have some sort of case here that will help keep any overly aggressive regulation in check, but as of yet, I haven't seen any details that would give me confidence that they have a legitimate case.

ECHO24

Here's how how far removed it is from model aircraft and the AMA. In an an interview posted Friday on dronelife, Tyler Brennan, owner of RaceDayQuads who initiated the lawsuit, refers to the AMA as "American Model Aircraft (fields)":

Dawn: Tyler, why would a FRIA hamstring the FPV community?

Tyler: "Most FRIAs are going to be American Model Aircraft (AMA fields) essentially. FPV and AMA fields do not go hand-in-hand."

The stated objective of the lawsuit is no Remote ID or any further regulations on drones at all.

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

That's a nice objective ... but without some sort of legitimate claim as to how the current regs violate their constitutional rights or conflicts with some other existing law, it will go absolutely nowhere. I might as well file lawsuit saying I don't want to be screened by TSA before boarding a flight.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

I'm too busy to go back through the entire thread but thank you to whomever pointed out that BLOS video on the AMA flight school site, I reviewed it and confirmed that its content isn't inline with our position on flying BLOS and asked that it be removed ASAP.

I'm not going to tell individual contributors what they can and can't post on their personal accounts, but if you know of any more AMA branded content that portrays content that is contrary to our values please let me know and I will review it.

FWIW that video was uploaded in 2014 when the landscape wasn't quite as clear as it's spelled out now.

Retiredat38

So basically they're sewing the FAA for doing what Congress told them to do. IOW doing their job.
I would also like someone to point out to me the part of the Constitution that promises Drone or even traditional RC flight? I've looked and can not find it. I even looked in the Federalists papers and it's not there either.

The stupidity of some of these people never ceases to amaze me.

ECHO24

The two videos I pointed out were the ReadmadeRC video in the AMA Flight School links and the 2014 one you are refering to. That
2014 video is the only link on the FPV Beginners Getting Started page and was obviously updated since then as noted in the caption.
There are other FPV links on AMA Flight School. I didn't look through them all but suffice to say all of this equipment is BVLOS by design.

Note: Long-range FPV was just as illegal in 2014. AMA sued the FAA over it then dropped it, as you recall.

Retiredat38

Actually I disagree with it being a nice objective. Because from what I've seen about this case, they're trying to claim Drone flying and in particular FPV flying as a right. And nowhere does the Constitution support such a contention. Drone flying as well as traditional RC is nothing more than a means by which a right can be exercised. And while the Constitution guarantees the right you might be exercising, it in no way guarantees the means by which you exercise that right. The means is a privilege which can be taken away. And one is free to use that means to exercise that right as long as they obey any relevant laws and do not interfere with the rights of others. Well, we now have some laws. And if that hurts someones feeling, that's just too bad.

People today are too wrapped up in this idea of being entitled to this, that and all the other things. They're all what's in it for me! And about what the government can and will do for them when not leaving them alone. Factual knowledge of the Constitution and what it provides is quickly fading from the American psychic. And I for one blame all the bleeding hearts as well as the teachers unions and lastly our teachers for this trend.

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

I am mostly in a alignment with you on this (my last comment was intended as sarcasm) ... of course, I would like to go back to the days of little to no regulation for our hobby, but the genie is already out of the bottle

_IF_ there is some legitimate claim that can help keep regulatory overreach in check here, I would gladly support it. However, I certainly do not know what might be (hence my question about what is the actual basis of their lawsuit). One thing we have learned is that if the sole basis is some sort of technicality, it is likely that any short term win will likely end up with even tighter regulation downstream.

This only makes sense if there is a solid basis for a claim of overregulation that violates some specific rights, but I have no clue what that claim might actually be. I'll keep an open mind, but I am not optimistic.

ECHO24

That's all nonsense. This is what's been filed according to Rupprecht Law's website:

• Petition for Review FILED
• Court notice of docketing

The only actual claim so far is the FAA met with parties after the NPRM comment period ended.
Anything not in their court filings can be disregarded.

Retiredat38

Well, in my conversations with various players in all this, Congress is the motivating force behind all this. And in large part it's due to their paranoia. They know what we have done with "drones" overseas and it scares them stupid to think someone, especially a US Citizen, might do the same right here. After all, they are loved by everyone aren't they? Hence the new rules. And unless reports of near misses subsides considerably, it's simply going to get worse with time. And the whole thing about delivery drones is simply Amazon et al taking advantage of a situation.

I do find the formal connection between the EAA and AMA to be commendable. But from where I sit I have seen more effort coming from the EAA which supports the hobby than I have seen from the AMA. The AMA seems capable only of trying to force membership and criminalizing anyone who dares not join.

However the majority of GA pilots and their families have no experience with sUAS of any type. And regardless what all those reported near misses really were, these people are convinced they were some RC aircraft with an idiot on the ground making it intentionally do what it did. i.e. come to close to a manned aircraft. And this, understandably pisses them off.

Secondly I don't see a lot of shall we say "legitimate" RC modelers doing a whole lot to help stop these in flight intrusions. They seem to have taken the position of waiting for someone else to find the guy and report him. They're not doing the hobby any favors by sitting back. But we have become a country of letting the other guy do it.

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

The problem is that with drones operated BVLOS, it can be pretty hard to find the "guy". In my opinion, that is a big part of why we are in this mess to begin with. RID is not about safety, it's about accountability and giving law enforcement some sort of tools to help find the "guy". Arguments about safety will get us nowhere because there are too many documented cases where people have done something they shouldn't have and there is almost no way to track them down (unless they were stupid enough to post it to YouTube under their own account ... and there have been plenty of people stupid enough to do that too!).

Hydro Junkie

You mean like the guy that flew a quad up to Seattle's Space Needle observation deck(500ft up), circled it twice while recording everyone there and then flew down the street to a local apartment building and then recorded what could be seen through windows with open drapes? Or maybe the person that flew another quad into Seattle's "Big Wheel" after which it crashed and was picked up by the Seattle Police and never claimed. Total damage was a broken prop, a quick fix that would have made it good to go. In both cases, the following legal issues were raised:

• flying in close proximity to FAA approved and documented helipads, some at medical and trauma centers
• flying over people
• recording people without consent and privacy violations

Even in the case of the one where the police ended up with the quad, a popular model sold at Best Buy, they couldn't do anything as Best Buy didn't record the serial number or who bought it. Had it been a requirement to record that information, the person could have been tracked down, cited and maybe got their very expensive quad back

GallopingGhostler

I learned early in life, that if you deal with those who abuse a system, you nip things in the bud and don't have to take any further measures. It is odd how that in society these days, we are no longer ruled by common sense. We live in an Alfred E. Neuman society, unfortunately. 'nuff said.

franklin_m

That's good that you did that, but aren't we paying a staff to pay attention to what goes on the site? Aren't they doing period reviews of content? I mean if nobody else, the ED sure is paid for that kind of thing.

Once again, AMA paying people to do jobs that clearly aren't being done. Yet still being paid.

Retiredat38

Regardless what anyone may think, take any reported near miss and someone out there besides the perp knows who did it. It's the rare individual who can do something like this and not brag about it at some point somewhere. Be it in a classroom, a bar, hobby shop, online or even church. They can't help talking and having a good laugh over it. And all we need to do is stay alert to these events. Keep our eyes and ears open. And act!

Because someone has heard it but dismissed it. Don't want to get involved, it's not their job, no time, etc. Everyone has an excuse. But they'll expect the world to beat a path to their door with the evidence when they're the victim. And of course these types will then piss and moan over the taxes they pay to support the Police. I have no sympathies for whatever befalls them.

ECHO24

AMA has kept the video up for 7 years. The article is the ONLY link on the FPV Beginners start page. There
are comments through March 2017.

The first comment questions the need to include information on long-range frequencies. The author of the
article responds and laughs it off, saying he has a friend who flies 433 MHz FPV in his back yard.

This sums up AMA's position on illegal FPV.

----

I just looked and the article is still up. Start here, "How do I":
http://www.amaflightschool.org/video...-your-system-0