Higher altitudes for sanctioned events.
03-08-2023, 11:35 AM
#1
Higher altitudes for sanctioned events.
I’ve been patiently waiting for this announcement. Looks like along with the sanction paperwork a request for higher altitudes up to 1,200’ can be granted. Great news for us soaring, IMAC and pattern guys. Huge win for traditional R/C!
https://contentsharing.net/actions/email_mobile_web_version.cfm?recipient_id=35904511 54&message_id=22826624&user_id=MODELAIR&jobid=58966484
https://contentsharing.net/actions/email_mobile_web_version.cfm?recipient_id=35904511 54&message_id=22826624&user_id=MODELAIR&jobid=58966484
03-08-2023, 06:22 PM
#6
03-08-2023, 06:29 PM
#7
I’ve come to the conclusion that you just like to gripe. Now that we have a legal avenue to continue with certain forms of flying, your still griping. Gripe when it’s illegal, grip when it’s legal. Your worse then a woman scorned. At least she would eventually get over the situation.
I didn't disparage the fact that there is now a process we can follow in order to get a waiver, I simply pointed out that we used to enjoy that privilege without any application process. It is important, as there is a narrative repeated here that, "nothing has changed, we fly as we always have" and it simply isn't true.
Astro
03-08-2023, 08:28 PM
#9
Astro
03-08-2023, 08:56 PM
#11
03-09-2023, 08:32 AM
#12
LOL. No, it wasn't a gripe at all. I, personally, could care less whether people fly over 400' or not because I think it is a stupid rule, BUT it IS bad optics and it IS breaking the law. My post from a couple of years ago was merely an observation, but spin it all you want as long as you think it fits your narrative.
Astro
Astro
03-09-2023, 10:13 AM
#13
If you truly don’t care about people flying over 400’ why keep bringing it up? Why post anything in this thread? As far as your observation from a couple years ago, it was business as usual right. That obviously supports what I have been saying. These new event waivers also supports my view that there are examples of FAA working with us as opposed to giving us rope.
Astro
03-09-2023, 10:44 AM
#14
I will probably regret jumping back in, but I'd like to just say that this news is a perfect example of the world not being all black or all white like many people who post on internet boards like to claim. While this certainly isn't everything we might want it is a step in the right direction. It also is concrete evidence that the FAA is not out to simply crush the hobby. It also shows that the AMA is still able to advocate for the hobby with the FAA. So while this is far from perfect it gives me confidence that the hobby can continue to find a path forward even in a world of increasing UAS regulation.
This is positive news for the hobby on many different levels and I will choose to treat it as such (at least that's what my spin is)!
This is positive news for the hobby on many different levels and I will choose to treat it as such (at least that's what my spin is)!
03-09-2023, 11:50 AM
#15
Yep, it’s easy for anyone who wants to see the writing on the wall. The FAA approves a waiver system for events. Where are events taking place? Schoolyards? Parks? Nope, they will be taking place at FRIAs. Sounds like the FAA realizes that they can’t enforce the 400’ altitude limit. Even Astro reluctantly admits that at a WA. AMA jamboree in 2021 that the 400’ altitude limit was not taken seriously. So the FAA has now given us a legal tool to use but the waiver application is part of a sanction. How many CBOs do event sanctions? That’s right folks, only AMA. So, what we now have is a situation where members of a dues collecting organization are getting a higher degree of privileges to the NAS then non members. Looks like someone is loosing his war.
I especially find this recent post from our resident “ aviation expert “ quite amusing.
I argue the AMA shows a similar cavalier attitude with respect to the conduct of its members at sanctioned events and hope to be FRIA locations .. specifically compliance with altitude restrictions. I predict that over time, unless the AMA shows that it will hold members accountable, it's not IF we see similar things here, but just WHEN.
Quote
I especially find this recent post from our resident “ aviation expert “ quite amusing.
I argue the AMA shows a similar cavalier attitude with respect to the conduct of its members at sanctioned events and hope to be FRIA locations .. specifically compliance with altitude restrictions. I predict that over time, unless the AMA shows that it will hold members accountable, it's not IF we see similar things here, but just WHEN.
Quote
Last edited by speedracerntrixie; 03-09-2023 at 12:00 PM.
03-09-2023, 03:23 PM
#16
Yep, it’s easy for anyone who wants to see the writing on the wall. The FAA approves a waiver system for events. Where are events taking place? Schoolyards? Parks? Nope, they will be taking place at FRIAs. Sounds like the FAA realizes that they can’t enforce the 400’ altitude limit. Even Astro reluctantly admits that at a WA. AMA jamboree in 2021 that the 400’ altitude limit was not taken seriously. So the FAA has now given us a legal tool to use but the waiver application is part of a sanction. How many CBOs do event sanctions? That’s right folks, only AMA. So, what we now have is a situation where members of a dues collecting organization are getting a higher degree of privileges to the NAS then non members. Looks like someone is loosing his war.
I especially find this recent post from our resident “ aviation expert “ quite amusing.
I argue the AMA shows a similar cavalier attitude with respect to the conduct of its members at sanctioned events and hope to be FRIA locations .. specifically compliance with altitude restrictions. I predict that over time, unless the AMA shows that it will hold members accountable, it's not IF we see similar things here, but just WHEN.
Quote
I especially find this recent post from our resident “ aviation expert “ quite amusing.
I argue the AMA shows a similar cavalier attitude with respect to the conduct of its members at sanctioned events and hope to be FRIA locations .. specifically compliance with altitude restrictions. I predict that over time, unless the AMA shows that it will hold members accountable, it's not IF we see similar things here, but just WHEN.
Quote
But the reality is think about what event sanctions bring. First, I don't think you should be so quick to assume that they'll always be approved. Second, each one then identifies to the FAA exactly where to go looking if they feel so inclined. And then there's the financials. Do you really expect clubs to start doubling, tripling, or even more the number of sanction fees they pay just to fly above 400? Which brings up the real threat to AMA ... financial.
This approval doesn't change that they're a discretionary hobby heading into a recession. It doesn't change that inflation is quite likely hitting the organization hard. It doesn't change the increasing age of members. It doesn't change the hit their investments likely suffered.
03-09-2023, 04:56 PM
#17
#1, How much are the "Sanctioned Event" fees ?
And
#2, Does the FAA charge for the "Altitude Waivers", and if so how much ?
03-09-2023, 05:12 PM
#18
When I posted two years ago, I posted that, although the WRAF field is less than a mile from an active airport, and there were no waivers granted for this AMA jamboree, the 400' rule was not being observed by the event participants.
I was not reluctant in admitting it, I posted it on my own free will to provide my actual experiences regarding AMA's blatant disrespect for the law.
Astro
03-09-2023, 07:07 PM
#20
More spin.
When I posted two years ago, I posted that, although the WRAF field is less than a mile from an active airport, and there were no waivers granted for this AMA jamboree, the 400' rule was not being observed by the event participants.
I was not reluctant in admitting it, I posted it on my own free will to provide my actual experiences regarding AMA's blatant disrespect for the law.
Astro
When I posted two years ago, I posted that, although the WRAF field is less than a mile from an active airport, and there were no waivers granted for this AMA jamboree, the 400' rule was not being observed by the event participants.
I was not reluctant in admitting it, I posted it on my own free will to provide my actual experiences regarding AMA's blatant disrespect for the law.
Astro
The only person spinning here is you, to the degree that you have no clue which way you are pointing.
03-09-2023, 07:25 PM
#21
Hey, good for them. But there is absolutely nothing that prevents other CBOs from "sanctioning" events too. Maybe their members don't care. Maybe they will in the future, in which case the AMA spent the travel dollars and the staff time, but all the other orgs will benefit from it. Sounds like they made the right move.
But the reality is think about what event sanctions bring. First, I don't think you should be so quick to assume that they'll always be approved. Second, each one then identifies to the FAA exactly where to go looking if they feel so inclined. And then there's the financials. Do you really expect clubs to start doubling, tripling, or even more the number of sanction fees they pay just to fly above 400? Which brings up the real threat to AMA ... financial.
This approval doesn't change that they're a discretionary hobby heading into a recession. It doesn't change that inflation is quite likely hitting the organization hard. It doesn't change the increasing age of members. It doesn't change the hit their investments likely suffered.
But the reality is think about what event sanctions bring. First, I don't think you should be so quick to assume that they'll always be approved. Second, each one then identifies to the FAA exactly where to go looking if they feel so inclined. And then there's the financials. Do you really expect clubs to start doubling, tripling, or even more the number of sanction fees they pay just to fly above 400? Which brings up the real threat to AMA ... financial.
This approval doesn't change that they're a discretionary hobby heading into a recession. It doesn't change that inflation is quite likely hitting the organization hard. It doesn't change the increasing age of members. It doesn't change the hit their investments likely suffered.
Either you’re kidding or clueless. You obviously don’t know what a sanction is. It’s directly linked to additional insurance for an event. How many CBOs offer insurance? That’s right only one. So yes, it’s only AMA chartered clubs that can apply for an event waiver.
I never stated that they all would be approved or even imply they would did I?
Event sanctions have always been published in the back of Model Aviation. We also have SIG web pages such as NSRCA, IMAC, NMPRA etc. where contest/event announcements can be found. Are you saying that FAA employees aren’t smart enough to find locations and dates for events?
$25 per sanction…..BFD
Yes the economy is affecting us all, do you have numbers that support a drop in 2023 membership? I have some numbers for you. Molalla R/C association. 50 member cap, all spots filled. Clark County R/C, as of Feb 10, 147 members. An all time high for that early in the year. People are not going to forgo membership when the economy is down, they put some projects on hold and fly what they have, shop smarter, buy/sell equipment at swap meets, help one another out. This is the part of the hobby you know nothing about.
03-09-2023, 07:53 PM
#22
I know exactly where I'm pointing. You, on the other hand, are trying to morph your narrative to reality and it simply doesn't fit.
The fact is that the new rules definitely change how we've operated, UNLESS, of course, you just choose to ignore the new rules. LOL
Keep on spinning.....
Astro
03-09-2023, 08:06 PM
#23
. (as far as the WRAF discussion).
I know exactly where I'm pointing. You, on the other hand, are trying to morph your narrative to reality and it simply doesn't fit.
The fact is that the new rules definitely change how we've operated, UNLESS, of course, you just choose to ignore the new rules. LOL
Keep on spinning.....
Astro
I know exactly where I'm pointing. You, on the other hand, are trying to morph your narrative to reality and it simply doesn't fit.
The fact is that the new rules definitely change how we've operated, UNLESS, of course, you just choose to ignore the new rules. LOL
Keep on spinning.....
Astro
03-10-2023, 06:44 AM
#25
Either you’re kidding or clueless. You obviously don’t know what a sanction is. It’s directly linked to additional insurance for an event. How many CBOs offer insurance? That’s right only one. So yes, it’s only AMA chartered clubs that can apply for an event waiver.
Event sanctions have always been published in the back of Model Aviation. We also have SIG web pages such as NSRCA, IMAC, NMPRA etc. where contest/event announcements can be found. Are you saying that FAA employees aren’t smart enough to find locations and dates for events?
I guess these clubs are awash in money? Also, don't forget that will add additional requriement that one or more club members become CDs/EMs (for which AMA also charges). Lastly, 30 days in advance ... plus FAA processing time. Even more admin overhead. How many clubs are going to jump through those hoops each and every time? Remains to be seen.
Yes the economy is affecting us all, do you have numbers that support a drop in 2023 membership? I have some numbers for you. Molalla R/C association. 50 member cap, all spots filled. Clark County R/C, as of Feb 10, 147 members. An all time high for that early in the year. People are not going to forgo membership when the economy is down, they put some projects on hold and fly what they have, shop smarter, buy/sell equipment at swap meets, help one another out. This is the part of the hobby you know nothing about.
AMA's IRS990 filings do however show a trend. Over the last ten years, 2011 - 2021 (last year I have a 990), their charter club fees are down 10.5% in constant year inflation adjusted dollars. As to membership in general, those same IRS990 reports show that the only meaningful measure of membership - membership revenue - is down over 13% across the same period.
