ECHO24

Talk about not fair, looks like you're a click away from banishment on the forum of death by boredom. "This user has a lot of rule violations, so we are hiding their post."

Some poor fool over there resurrected "Aerones Building Cleaner Drone", by Jason Cole. It's a tethered hose/sprayer hoisted up by some propellers to wash windows. This was at the apex of AMA stupidity calling anything in the air without a human onboard is a "model aircraft". Sure enough, Jason assures readers, "It certainly fits here. It is a model aircraft..." Jason probably emailed to tell them it was time to join AMA and pay dues.

It gets better, "Commercial or recreational isn’t a factor for this forum section." No need to look any further than the 'Model Aircraft and Commercial Drone Advocacy Forum' why the RC flying hobby went down the toilet and DJI won.

franklin_m

Fair point ... you made me laugh on a day where I really needed. My point was "no fair" being that funny that easily!

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I like to challenge myself in strange ways. This time, my challenge is to try and figure out the actual rules before full banishment happens!

So far, it's been difficult to decipher, as what is construed as against the rules by one poster, is clearly within the rules for another. I like a good challenge.

Astro

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Glad I could provide the impetus for a smile, we all know there is not enough smiles in the world today. Sorry about your keyboard!

Astro

ECHO24

The golden rule is you drink the AMA juice or you're eventually gone if you post enough. Franklin lasted a long time because he is business-like. They had to trump something up. In a classic political move he was even airbrushed out of the picture. It's a message for the dopes left what happens if you step out of the party line. Petty victories for petty people.

ECHO24

I've been wandering down memory lane on the 2018 Franklin attack thread by elan, "(Red Alert!) Are Some Posters Here Being Paid by the Drone Industry to Capture our Airspace?", i.e., the one and only Franklin. 114 pages! (finally moved to "Life, The Universe, And Politics"). Don't say I've never stood up for Franklin:

"OK, now try posting something we haven't seen 20 times. You still haven't posted one scintilla of evidence that franklin is a paid "shill", even if he has consulted on a 107 project. Another solid AMAer who just posted here has a tag-line that lists Embry Riddle's MOOC on drones that covers 107. Is he a paid shill for the drone industry too?"

"Who else besides an AMA fanboy would get away with this? elan can be as offensive as he wants and nobody will do a thing about it."

FusterCluck, though, he's The Man!:

"Originally Posted by FusterCluck
Yes, well that has become a problem here at RCG. I have, in the recent pasts, reported several post where management duly ignored the bullying, provocation and obnoxiousness of the posts. Done this before on the same person and on weekends. Makes me think one of the hidden mods here is a member with a PLUS membership. He is untouchable.

But ... that has been a problem in the past as well; a few members that drive post counts up, even if they do it by controversial posts or making posts that agitate others to post always seem to get a free ride. Back when the original AMA board was on the front page it generated a lot of hate for AMA but also a lot of posts for the site.

In my opinion the AMA and RCG are too tightly knitted here. This invalidates the presence of AMA and their mission as well as casts RCG in a light that is skewed.

Regardless, I stand with Franklin and his mission."

Amen brother.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I guess the confirmation bias runs strong over there! I honestly do not understand how an "adult" can be so indoctrinated in their beliefs (about toy airplanes) that they will only seek out those who pat them on the back and make them feel good, rather than engage in an actual conversation where both sides are able to present their respective perspectives. Weird.

Astro

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

that is because, you live in an adult world, with other adults, for the most part. you only run into 35-70 year old teenagers here on the hobby boards, and all hobby boards have a share of the immature types.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I can be as immature as the next guy, but I will admit to it and embrace it. Those guys? NO WAY! There are deeper issues at play.

I just politely asked one of them to clarify a statement they had made. He said he was done with me and put me on ignore! LOL. THAT is not normal adult behavior.

Astro

ECHO24

You were one of the reasonable one's on that Franklin attack thread. I always wondered who ppiperz was, (z). He and I had some good go-arounds.

ECHO24

We wouldn't be here if it was only about "toy airplanes". When AMA brought in drones they brought in issues about national security, airspace rules, trespassing, privacy, and a corrupt hobby organization that sold out their base.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I can’t speak for you, but I could give a rip about drones and I was here long before they were an issue. It is about toy airplanes.

Astro

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

That's actually not true, we were already lumped in with the "drones"

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

That is a fact that gets frequently overlooked in this debate. I am not saying the AMA handled everything perfectly, but there is nothing the AMA could have done to somehow somehow completely exclude traditional model aircraft from any UAS regulation.

franklin_m

And what's your proof of that? Just saying it does not make it true.

And your comment still doesn't address the AMA's decision to allow it to continue. For example, had AMA made clear policy and rule changes that showed unequivocally that MRs were not part of what AMA considered Model Aircraft, it's possible one might have been able to work those early regulations to be more favorable. But they chose otherwise.

I think "saying" that "we were already lumped in with the drone" is just AMA trying to put lipstick on a pig. One only has to look at the declining revenue to see that AMA needed to find another source of membership revenue and the EC went for the quick fix. They made a play for compulsory membership with 336. I have to say that I'm exceedingly proud of first getting the FAA to say that membership is not required, then secondly working to see that codified by changing the "and" to an "or."

Which reminds me ... How are the inflation adjusted membership REVENUE trends?

ECHO24

Apparently you never read Section 336. "Model aircraft" can only be flown in visual line of sight. AMA defied the FAA with their FPV rules for 4 years. By then it was too late.

"(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft;"

Section 336 never covered people flying FPV anywhere. It's AMA and Rich Hanson who thought otherwise.

Like Patrick Egan article, 'How Can it Get Worse Than This? What keeps you guys going with the excuses in the face of all the losses?

ECHO24

Sorry anymodeler. The first thing Rich Hanson did after Sec. 336 was passed was sue the FAA over FPV and low-level "drone" airspace outside of AMA fields. Thus began AMA's drone tug-of-war with the FAA, the stupid fights over every FAA rule, the forced (drone) membership scheme, etc., etc. And one no one talks about, AMA putting pressure on the FAA to setup two registration systems at taxpayer expense, one for AMA members and another for everyone else. The painful drone saga finally ended with the repeal of Sec. 336.

Sec. 336 was repealed because AMA was standing in the way of Remote ID, the key mandate to the FAA on drones. There were upwards of 1,000,000 drone owners and Hanson was saying all they had to do to is become AMA members and they were untouchable by the FAA. Lawmakers had had enough. Rep. DeFazio, Chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, was furious that "toy airplanes" were holding up the legislation. Other key lawmakers makers felt the same. They showed Rich Hanson the door.

Pretty simple. No camera no GPS. That is a line-of-sight model aircraft. AMA had no business crossing that line. AMA would not listen and wrecked the hobby over it. As a result the US now has more restrictions on RC model flying than China (under 7Kg anyway, or 99.9% of the hobby). Think about that.

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

You say this all like it really mattered. Right from the beginning, the FAA defined UAS as pretty much anything that flies without a pilot on board and clearly included 'toy airplanes" in their definition. In 2012, congress tells the FAA they need to get their act together with UAS and come up with some rules, but thanks to some intense lobbying by the AMA (and others) we get this thing called 336 which says "recreational" UAS get exempted from these rules, provided they don't "endanger the safety of the national airspace system". But 336 was never a blank check for model aircraft and about a minute after the law passes, the FAA reminds us that they have regulatory authority down to the grass on everything that flies, so no flying over 400 feet, and contact your local control tower (until LAANC), and register your drone with us, and no FPV, etc. but there is enough ambiguity in the law that we end up with a bunch of lawsuits about what the FAA can and can't do about toy airplanes.

2018 rolls around and the courts are frustrated by lawsuits, and congress is tired of constituents complaining about drones, and the security types (who don't give two piles of excrement about the FAA, the AMA or any of the nonsense idiots like us blather on about on toy airplane forums) are getting more paranoid about rouge drones, so while toy airplanes still get a pass on part 107, there is clear(er) definition that the FAA still gets to write the rules (to appease the courts), and we have to pass a knowledge test (so congress can say they are doing something) and we get tagged with an ID system (to appease the security guys).

All of this would have happened no matter what Rich Hanson and the AMA did because the forces driving these things are like the tide coming in and there was nothing that was going to stop them. All the distinctions we make about cameras and GPS and how we fly and what we fly mean absolutely nothing to those who are writing the laws. Everything is a "drone" (because that is the popular vernacular) and all of this is just a bunch of noise that some grown kids are making about toy airplanes that most of the world wish would just go away.

ECHO24

Wrong. AMA could have said they did not consider those craft "model aircraft" under Sec. 336 and let the FAA sort it out. AMA extending the exemption to anything that flies unleashed the drone free-for-all and blew up the hobby. Nice try.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

^^^This was the BIG misstep by the AMA^^^

The AMA loyalists here will never acquiesce that had the AMA defined the difference between “traditional” model aircraft and “drones” and asked the FAA to acknowledge that separation, there is a chance we would be enjoying our hobby as we always have, with no tests, registrations, FRIA’s or transponders. To not acknowledge that is simply being obtuse.

Astro

ECHO24

Ken Heron is an outlaw FPV "influencer" on YouTube. He recently had the idiot xjet/Bruce on a panel discussion on the RDQ loss. If you don't know, Bruce Simpson is another outlaw FPV influencer down in New Zealand who churns our disinformation by the cubic yard. During the discussion one of several outrageously false things Bruce said was that police were going to enforce drone laws so they could pocket the fines. That's obviously false, but I found out talking to Patrick Egan that proposal was actually brought up in a meeting when AMA said flat-out they wanted nothing to do with enforcement. That's the organization that was going to "manage" 1,000,000 drone owners.

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

And exactly how would that have changed things? Would that have cleared up the ambiguities in 336 that led to the lawsuits? Would that have made the security types less paranoid about drones? Would that have stopped Karens from complaining? I know you believe that if we distanced ourselves from the rouge drone fliers we would have been left alone, but to be blunt, that is just naive wishful thinking. Do you honestly think members of congress who write the laws really understand the distinction and care to learn? Do you really think the security types care at all about any such distinction? Do you think the Karens would be willing to spend even two seconds trying to understand who exactly the target of their complaining is?

I get it that you are frustrated by what is going on and you want to lay blame at the AMA. Fine, you have every right to do so. I agree the AMA made some big mistakes (and have said so many times), but I am just trying to point out that the AMA is just not powerful or influential enough to be the sole force driving the outcomes. To ignore the bigger picture will only lead us to miss out potentially bigger threats to the hobby.

ECHO24

"Frustrated". anymodeler is now a psychoanalyst. We can debate what might have happened had AMA taken a position on LOS model aircraft vs. drones. The course AMA did take was guaranteed to blow up, which it did, after a lot of people tried to warn them. The point of no return was AMA's 2016 election for president when Rich Hanson doubled down on drones and FPV and won. AMA idiots got what hey voted for.

You don't know much about the lawsuits. Each and every one was lost in favor of the FAA, except for Taylor 1 which was quickly negated by Congress changing the law. Saying that AMA made a few mistakes is like the old saw, "Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"

Using Karens, naive wishful thinking, bigger picture, potentially bigger threats, etc., are all undefined wordplay. I get that you're frustrated taking a position that can only be supported using these strawmen to prop it up. 'A' for punctuation and grammar though, neat and tidy.

All the lawsuits are easy to find. The were 4 "Taylors", 1 or 2 were filed by his brother. If you really want to know about the Congressional hearings they are probably still available on C-SPAN. They might still be on RCGroups. They were discussed there with a lot of hissing an booing. I eventually delete this stuff after it's been broadcast enough to be common knowledge. I'm no longer going to bother digging up things for the die-hards. The war is lost and AMA fields are now under federal control. Pretty hard to spin that.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

At the beginning of all of this, the AMA did have the power to influence things. They had the respect of the FAA and they had an 80 year legacy of being the premier organization in respect to aeromodeling. They had all of the history, data, rules and infrastructure already in place that the FAA and Congress needed to cover their needs, with the exception of the advent of autonomous drones. All the AMA had to do was tell the FAA to create regulations necessary for drones but leave the legacy traditional models alone. Traditional models do not pose security threats or airspace issues and they had 80 years of data to back that up. Once they romanced the drones, that all went out the window.

Astro

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

No need to make this personal.

Your arguments are just as vague and non-definitive because no one has a way of going back in time and running the experiment again to see if there would be a different outcome. But in all of this, you still have not answered why things would have been different if the AMA had not attempted tp embrace drones.