aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

Agree.

I agree that most recreational flyers do not fully acknowledge/understand this but it is NOT limited to AMA members

While I do agree that the AMA could do a better job at communications (this is one of their biggest opportunity areas) and could do a better job at messaging about an individual pilots responsibility, I completely disagree with the implication that the AMA is trying somehow to downplay or subvert the FAA's role. I would again argue that most recreational UAS flyers, even ones who have passed the TRUST test, do not really understand this process. While the AMA's contributions to solving this are incremental at best, I suspect that the average AMA member is still better informed than the average guy who bought a DJI drone because he thought it would be cool to post videos on YouTube.

As I have stated before, I have no problems calling out where the AMA needs to improve, and TFR notifications and education is valid area where improvement is needed, but the tone of this thread is that the AMA is somehow acting in a duplicitous manner. The only point of that kind of rhetoric is sow dissent and weaken the entire hobby.

Hydro Junkie

I would agree with a majority of this. Where I have an issue is that probably a majority of R/C pilots don't think full size rules apply to them or have, in some cases, been told as much. I'm not going to hold the AMA accountable for people that fly R/C not checking for TFRs. When you consider that your average GA pilot is expected to check for TFRs before he flies, it should be the same for an R/C pilot. I would also hold the R/C pilot responsible for knowing what class of airspace their flying location is in. Again, a GA pilot is expected to know this so why wouldn't that apply to an R/C pilot? While I do hold the AMA accountable for many things(unnecessary wasting of resources being a pet peeve), I can't see where the staff in Muncie should be required to keep track of where a TFR is/will be or when it will be in effect.

Hydro Junkie

Did I kill this thread yesterday? No one has posted in it since I did so........

scale only 4 me

My Feedback: (158)

I think it ran it's course,, like all threads here,, Start out with a subject twisting an issue to demonize the AMA in Muncie for something they did or failed to do,,, go off topic into nonsensical personal fighting a bit. Then just fizzle out until the next thread that serves no one is started,

Seemed normal to me, can't really give you credit or any blame

franklin_m

I think you're spot on. Unfortunately, other than the FAA we really don't see any of the CBOs clearly and unambiguously messaging to their members that many of the full size rules apply to them. What I'd call a sin of omission, they're contributing to the sense that the rules don't apply by NOT telling their members they're wrong. And not telling them early, often, and at all levels. Internal messaging sort of thing.

As for the staff in Muncie and being required to keep track of where TFRs are and are not applicable, the FAA isn't asking them to do that. So it's the AMA leadership that's levied that requirement on their own staff. As I'm sure you're well aware from your own experience with regulators, the absolute worst place to be is that you impose something on yourself above and beyond what the regulator asks, and then you do it poorly. That's where AMA is on the TFR interpretation / publishing / notification issue. The other CBOs are doing it better IMO, merely directing their members to the authoritative source and requiring rank and file member to read the TFRs and NOTAMS for themselves rather than being spoon fed (and building bad habits of dependence on those feedings) as a result.

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

What would be ideal is if the B4UFly App provided a proactive notification of a TFR in your area.

franklin_m

They already do. Unless you've been conditioned that "AMA will tell me if I need to know."

Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) | Federal Aviation Administration (faa.gov)

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

No, I get that they are available in B4UFly. What I mean is a proactive alert like you get with a weather app or news app or virtually every other app that constantly wants to grab your attention . It would be a very simple thing to add to the app and like all notifications, something that you could enable or turn off on your own phone.

Hydro Junkie

Unfortunately, most TFRs are not issued more than 24 to 48 hours in advance of becoming effective. An exception to that would be AF-1, which its domestic destinations are usually announced in advance by a week or more. A second would be long standing events, such as the Unlimited hydroplane races in Seattle and Kennewick Washington. They have air shows that close the area around the race sites for several days that all the locals know about. While the racing officials actually use drones in the running of the races, the drones are landed between heats so that the airshow can proceed without any worry of the drones getting in the way. It also allows for batteries to be recharged or replaced as needed while the drones are on the ground

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

I'm not sure how that matters to the idea I am proposing. The B4UFly App has access to a database of TFRs already and it knows your location (or at least the location the phone is currently in). It can just check that database with some recurring frequency (maybe once an hour?) and if there is a new TFR applicable for your location, display a little notification icon on your phone (like all other apps do). It would still be up to you to click on the notification to get the details, but at least it would be a trigger for you to look.

Hydro Junkie

I wasn't aware B4UFly updates that frequently. It it does update that often, it is exactly the opposite of the apps that I have used. Most apps I have dealt with don't update nearly that often so, once they have updated, it's normally at least 12 hours until the next update.

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

I am saying it can refresh content that frequently (or even more frequently) as a background process. Many apps do this routinely (if you have a weather or news app on your phone, it already does this). This is trivial and well defined stuff.

RCoffroadracer

seems like at least one person in here has a bad relationship with the AMA LOL. so what happened before texting and the internet? were they calling everyone about these events decades ago? I think someone just wants something to whine about. Govern me harder daddy!

Hydro Junkie

What they used to do is have an "FAA desk" at the airport office where you got to see a list of TFRs and filed your flight plan before you took off. In our era of high tech communications, people have gotten lazy. Why go to the airport office when you can just do everything with a PC, tablet or smart phone?

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Drive to the airport to check for TFRs or Notams on your way to an R/C flying field sounds very inconvenient. Especially when some have complained that a 1/2 hour drive to the field is too much.

RCoffroadracer

i'm talking about someone whining about RC planes and the AMA

ECHO24

Probably not one in a thousand RC flyers even knew what a TFR was until a couple of years ago. On RC forums RC flying has been turned into a NASA event.

Hydro Junkie

Since you clarified you were talking R/C and AMA, I doubt they did anything. It's only since the advent of multirotors and park flyers, over the past few years, that any of this has become an issue and that, truth be told, is due to the "I can fly anywhere and how I want" mentality that came into the hobby with them.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

100% agree. However, had the FAA required all UAS operators to be a CBO member the potential for the amount of those incidents would have been decreased. With membership comes access to information and more importantly, where to access information. Things that a non R/C guy walking into Best Buy to purchase a DJI drone have no clue about. Mandatory membership could have also stifled sales of such drones, again reducing the number of incidents.

Hydro Junkie

But, again, until the advent of the multirotor and park flyers, none of this was an issue. Since it wasn't an issue, the FAA had no reason to act in regard to R/Cs. It's just like with my boats, I can run them anyplace a full sized powerboat can be operated without a permit. IF I try were to go to a site that doesn't allow power boats or is posted "NO R/C VEHICLES", I would definitely have to worry about the park rangers or LEOs showing up and taking action, unless I had a permit to do so.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

And here is where the fog rolls in. From my ( and others ) perspective, congress forced the grouping of all UAS. There was nothing anyone or any CBO could have done to prevent that. AMA kinda went with the flow knowing the fight would have been in vein. However there have been many examples of FAA making the distinction themselves. Zero interference with national and international events known to exceed 400’. The NATs in Muncie is a great example, class G airspace. Yet at July approaches plans are being made. Soaring Nats in Muncie is another great example, it has one of the largest number of contestants and in some classes launch altitudes exceed 400’. In spite of that the FAA shows virtually zero concern. Their main focus is exactly where it needs to be, keeping uneducated and uncaring quadcopter operators out of manned aircraft traffic.

Hydro Junkie

But again, Congress acted on issues caused by quad copters and park flyers flown by the "I'm Special" crowd. Let's look at some of the transgressions of that group that caused Congress to act:

• flying over a fire zone and forcing the grounding of fire fighting aircraft
• colliding with full sized military helicopters
• video recording inside other's residences
• flying over sporting events/crowds
• interfering with full size aircraft operations at airports

Stuff like this forced Congress to act. Since stuff like this is still happening, Congress is requiring the FAA to take more and more aggressive measures, including the requirement of equipping all R/C aircraft with transponders. I say all because, eventually, the FRIA system will be deemed unworkable since the sites are all, at least for now, AMA sites and the AMA isn't going to last forever with the present management

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

First off, Transponder is not the correct term. The RID module will have limited capabilities in comparison. Since you have no intentions to fly at a FRIA you will need to buy one. As of right now you’re looking at $150-$200.

As much as I agree about the current head honcho at AMA, it’s not going under within our lifetimes. There will always be a core group who will keep it going. If you add up the membership in all the special interest groups that need the AMA insurance for competition of their segment ( LSF, NSRCA, NMPRA, IMAC etc ) there is enough membership dollars there to keep a bare bones AMA alive. FRIAs are going to be a way of life for those who enjoy the club atmosphere. Some sites that get denied FRIA status will continue as always but with modules.

franklin_m

Meanwhile, I looked through all the communication received from the CBO across the last several years, and I can count ON ONE HAND the number of legitimate aviation safety communications. By that I mean educational materials about airspace. How to use LAANC. Rules for operations in Class G. How to find things in the FARs. Heck, not even a write up that when FAA says something applies to "ALL AIRCRAFT" that includes model aircraft.

What "information" do we see? Lots of content about this competition or that, this club or that, scholarships, camp AMA, the NATS, national model aviation day, product reviews, or general patting themselves on the back for attending this meeting or that. So when you say "access to information..." are you surely are not talking about aviation safety material.

Hydro Junkie

Actually, the term "transponder" is accurate to both R/C and full sized aircraft. Both primarily do nothing more than transmit an ID number to whatever ATC is within range to pick it up. The only real differences are that a full sized aircraft's transponder can have the ID number changed in flight while the RID can't and the full sized transponder can be used to notify ATC that there is an emergency.