Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

Higher altitudes for sanctioned events.

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

Higher altitudes for sanctioned events.

Old 03-08-2023, 11:35 AM
  #1  
speedracerntrixie
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,231
Received 155 Likes on 133 Posts
Default Higher altitudes for sanctioned events.

Iíve been patiently waiting for this announcement. Looks like along with the sanction paperwork a request for higher altitudes up to 1,200í 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





Old 03-08-2023, 11:47 AM
  #2  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 26,445
Received 293 Likes on 235 Posts
Default

So it seems they (the FAA) can grant altitude waivers in Class G airspace.

Big win for AMA
Old 03-08-2023, 02:24 PM
  #3  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,237
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey
So it seems they (the FAA) can grant altitude waivers in Class G airspace.

Big win for AMA
Big win from not having to have a waiver at all?

Nice spin!

Astro
Old 03-08-2023, 02:59 PM
  #4  
speedracerntrixie
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,231
Received 155 Likes on 133 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog
Big win from not having to have a waiver at all?

Nice spin!

Astro
Unrealistic to think that would have ever happened.
Old 03-08-2023, 05:07 PM
  #5  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,237
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Unrealistic to think that would have ever happened.
How easily you forget, "How we've always flown".

Never had to have a waiver in the past.

Nice spin, though!

Astro
Old 03-08-2023, 06:22 PM
  #6  
speedracerntrixie
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,231
Received 155 Likes on 133 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog
How easily you forget, "How we've always flown".

Never had to have a waiver in the past.

Nice spin, though!

Astro
Iíve 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 itís illegal, grip when itís legal. Your worse then a woman scorned. At least she would eventually get over the situation.
Old 03-08-2023, 06:29 PM
  #7  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,237
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Iíve 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 itís illegal, grip when itís legal. Your worse then a woman scorned. At least she would eventually get over the situation.
There you go with the name-calling again, just can't help yourself, can you?

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
Old 03-08-2023, 06:54 PM
  #8  
speedracerntrixie
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,231
Received 155 Likes on 133 Posts
Default

Sure it is. If you got off your butt and went to a flying field you would see little to no change from 10 years ago. In fact didnít you drop by Wenatchee a couple years ago and grip that people were flying over 400í?
Old 03-08-2023, 08:28 PM
  #9  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,237
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Sure it is. If you got off your butt and went to a flying field you would see little to no change from 10 years ago. In fact didnít you drop by Wenatchee a couple years ago and grip that people were flying over 400í?
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
Old 03-08-2023, 08:49 PM
  #10  
FUTABA-RC
 
FUTABA-RC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,369
Received 39 Likes on 36 Posts
Default

Great you can get a waiver for a contest. Now, how do you practice for that contest you need a waiver to fly in?
Old 03-08-2023, 08:56 PM
  #11  
speedracerntrixie
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,231
Received 155 Likes on 133 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by FUTABA-RC
Great you can get a waiver for a contest. Now, how do you practice for that contest you need a waiver to fly in?
Bill, what Iím going to suggest to my club that has pattern and IMAC events to send in sanctions and applications for waivers for a few practice days as well. I imagine this could lead to a higher emphasis placed on the caller. For soaring, these days itís fairly easy to get times, practicing landings donít require flying over 400í and IMO are over 50% of a competitive score.
Old 03-09-2023, 08:32 AM
  #12  
speedracerntrixie
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,231
Received 155 Likes on 133 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog
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
If you truly donít care about people flying over 400í 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.
Old 03-09-2023, 10:13 AM
  #13  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,237
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
If you truly donít care about people flying over 400í 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.
Like I said, spin it however you want........

Astro
Old 03-09-2023, 10:44 AM
  #14  
aymodeler
My Feedback: (3)
 
aymodeler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

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)!
Old 03-09-2023, 11:50 AM
  #15  
speedracerntrixie
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,231
Received 155 Likes on 133 Posts
Default

Yep, itís 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 canít enforce the 400í altitude limit. Even Astro reluctantly admits that at a WA. AMA jamboree in 2021 that the 400í 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? Thatís 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 ď aviation expert ď 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.
Old 03-09-2023, 03:23 PM
  #16  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,423
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Yep, itís 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 canít enforce the 400í altitude limit. Even Astro reluctantly admits that at a WA. AMA jamboree in 2021 that the 400í 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? Thatís 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 ď aviation expert ď 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
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.
Old 03-09-2023, 04:56 PM
  #17  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,266
Received 44 Likes on 38 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
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.
OK guys, help an old guy out here, will ya ? Two questions WRT financials;

#1, How much are the "Sanctioned Event" fees ?

And

#2, Does the FAA charge for the "Altitude Waivers", and if so how much ?

Old 03-09-2023, 05:12 PM
  #18  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,237
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Even Astro reluctantly admits that at a WA. AMA jamboree in 2021 that the 400í altitude limit was not taken seriously.
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
Old 03-09-2023, 05:13 PM
  #19  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 26,445
Received 293 Likes on 235 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun
OK guys, help an old guy out here, will ya ? Two questions WRT financials;

#1, How much are the "Sanctioned Event" fees ?

And

#2, Does the FAA charge for the "Altitude Waivers", and if so how much ?
25 which provides additional insurance
No
Old 03-09-2023, 07:07 PM
  #20  
speedracerntrixie
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,231
Received 155 Likes on 133 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog
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
The reluctance is that you wonít admit although you saw with your own eyes, operations at flying fields are unchanged.

The only person spinning here is you, to the degree that you have no clue which way you are pointing.
Old 03-09-2023, 07:25 PM
  #21  
speedracerntrixie
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,231
Received 155 Likes on 133 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
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.

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.
Old 03-09-2023, 07:53 PM
  #22  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,237
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
The reluctance is that you wonít admit although you saw with your own eyes, operations at flying fields are unchanged.

The only person spinning here is you, to the degree that you have no clue which way you are pointing.
LOL. The only reason things are unchanged is because the AMA is refusing to abide the new rules. (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
Old 03-09-2023, 08:06 PM
  #23  
speedracerntrixie
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,231
Received 155 Likes on 133 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog
LOL. The only reason things are unchanged is because the AMA is refusing to abide the new rules
Originally Posted by astrohog
. (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
Dude, just stop. I feel embarrassed for you. Like I said, no idea where you are pointing. Youíre so intent on the fight you canít even comprehend what it is youíre typing. Take your meds and go to bed.
Old 03-10-2023, 03:07 AM
  #24  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,266
Received 44 Likes on 38 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey
25 which provides additional insurance
No

Thank You Andy, I appreciate your answers to my questions.
Old 03-10-2023, 06:44 AM
  #25  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,423
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Either youíre kidding or clueless. You obviously donít know what a sanction is. Itís directly linked to additional insurance for an event. How many CBOs offer insurance? Thatís right only one. So yes, itís only AMA chartered clubs that can apply for an event waiver.
Please cite the section of US Code or the FARs that require insurance. Oh, that's right, the insurance requirement exists only in your mind.

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
I never stated that they all would be approved or even imply they would did I?
I'll give you that. But the fact remains, not all will be approved.

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
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 arenít smart enough to find locations and dates for events?
First, saying they're in the back of MA assumes facts not in evidence, that FAA receives copies of that magazine. I doubt that. But regardless, having their own internal list of them, via the approval process, does make it considerably easier to track them down. Plus, that altitude approval is a document of record, and binding, which AMA's rag - excuse me - magazine, is not.

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
$25 per sanctionÖ..BFD
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.

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
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.
Citing two isolated examples does not define a national trend.

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.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.