Silent-AV8R

I'm sorry, but this is just silly. It amazes me how some of you guys think. Yes, the AMA sees this as a "perfect opportunity" for them. Forget that we may all get screwed here and right now it appears that all that stands between us and the FAA is the AMA. No, the AMA is "in bed" with the FAA and is licking their chops in anticipation of solidifying their "monopoly". Amazing.

KidEpoxy

Silent,
some of are fully aware that AMA is fighting the proposed 400' limit
with the alacrity that they fought to change the decades old 400' cap in AC91-57 for the betterment of the entire aeromodeling hobby.

Consider that if they HAD gotten the 400 in ac9157 changed to 1000' years/decades ago,
it would be precedence for any model alt talks now.... rather than
400 has been in place forever, why change it now, mentality and regulation

Sport_Pilot

Lets start one.

MADMEN

Model Aviation for Destructive Mewling And Nonsense.

The Toolman

That's stupid enough that it should qualify for stimulus money IMO.


Ron

Silent-AV8R

Tony Stillman posted this to the Pattern Email List:

Bob Mitchell

I've got to agree with you on this.

IMO When FAA speaks of a "community based organization" they're speaking of an large national organization with a long history of expertise in all types of model aviation. AFAIK AMA is really the only game in town. Like it or not, AMA IS speaking for all participants at this point. One may not agree with what AMA is saying, but the FAA is listening to them, not you, me or whoever. I'm not aware of any other organization that may have enough clout with FAA to prevent an across the board 400' altitude limit, a ban on turbine powered models, 100 mph speed limits, etc. It seems to me that the best play here is to support AMA's efforts rether than undermine them.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Uh, what part of my post did you actually understand? Your response sounds like you are agreeing with me, if not....then you need to re-word it.

rack

My Feedback: (11)

thats fine if they do post rule changes . but ! this administration cant be trusted , they may just do it threw one of there zares and leave it up to us to force there hand,

KidEpoxy

"Many manufacturers want to limit us in many ways, and ..."

I am having a hard time digesting
that the goal of a commercial manufacturer is to limit others without regard to themselves.
I would find it more likely they are getting the shaft handed down, and notice the AMA rep not helping them, so they see no need to help us be exempted from what they have to deal with.

If you set a UAV/UA/UAS with a programmed thrust burn time and control surface deflection routine,
isnt that a 049 FF model with fused dethermalizer or multifunction Texas Timer?
What additional requirements does AMA put on the 49lb DA200 FF that the 049 FF dont have?


<This of course is a wild speculative interpretive opinion of mine, your mileage may vary>

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

I agree with you. IF this is true, it would appear that they are recognizing the AMA as a leader and representative for the modeling community. Much like the AARP apparently represents "all" of those age 55 and above, whther you agree with them or not.
IF this is true it may turn out that in order to fly turbines, or above a certain altitude, or a large model, you will have to maintain an AMA membership since it would likely require some sort of verification process if it were ever questioned.
As much as one may not like it, at least they are allowing some sort of representation at the table before any substanial legislation is passed.

Bob Mitchell

There's a similar thread going in the Jet forum, and in one post there is a list of the group makes up the ARC. I didn't see anyone other than AMA that could be construed as a speaking voice for the modeling community. It's going to come down to how much of a voice the AMA really has in the matters under discussion, and whether FAA is really listening or not. I hope they are indeed listening and that AMA's involvement is not just one of lip service. Some of the limitations underdiscussion are draconian, to say the least.

Silent-AV8R

If I understand your fractured English it seems to me that you feel this has something to do with the current Administration. It does not. The FAA started this process under the Bush Administration. In fact I was aware that they were moving this direction as early as 2001. Beyond that, I do not think it has anything to do with the current party in power, it is just the FAA doing what they see is their "thing".

rack

My Feedback: (11)

no that's not my intention, its just we have a greater threat from this administration because they are less likely to follow the same procedures that have been done in the past ( its change we can believe in)

you will have to excuse my language, im trying to set up an airplane and one finger type at the same time wile getting yelled at by my wife

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Be that as it may, Fred Marks (FMA) is a co-chair. As I interpret so far, there seems to be ample verbiage to protect his interests.

The way I see it...there are just a few at the table trying to get their piece of the pie.

We need not worry…we have one of our big cats guarding the milk.

Sport_Pilot

For now its just amongst the bureaucrats. I am on the right of the political spectrum but even the conservatives might pick up on this and exclaim Obama is trying to take basic rights away, first guns, then hobbies, next maybe golf, etc, etc. This may hinder rather than help. I'd rather not try to correct something that won’t be done until another administration.

So lets try not to let it get above the bureaucrats, OK?!

dragonov3

My Feedback: (3)

IMHO getting the government involved in "ANYTHING" is just asking for it to be either ruined or taxed into non-exsistance. It seems to me we no longer live in a country founded on freedom,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We live in a country based on no common sense, the erosion of our freedom and how much the government can tax us and get away with. I absolutely love my country, but absolutely do not trust or believe in the federal government.

JoeAirPort

My Feedback: (41)

Good thing I fly low and slow 50cc aircraft. Of course if they ban it all then I'm screwed too.

abel_pranger

I agree with that to a significant extent, but how about considering WHO is getting the government involved? FAA has a long standing policy of 'hands-off' model aviation, so long as the participants don't get in the way of them doing their job - keeping order in the national airspace to the extent necessary for safe air transport. That policy is stated explicitly in AC 91-57, has been in effect for decades, and reiterated several times in recent years as FAA recognized a need to get in the business of regulating UAV's. Model aircraft were specifically and uniquely singled out for exception from regulation, apart from all other UAV's.

The FAA ordered the small UAS ARC specifically to address the concerns of operators of small unmanned aircraft for non-sport/recreational purposes. Some of these operators had sought to conduct their operations under the exception granted to model airplanes, until FAA clarified that the exception did not apply to UAVs operated for public, research or commercial purposes. FAA did however entertain the notion that some rules less rigorous than the regulations developed for the general class of UAV's might be appropriate for small aircraft similar to model airplanes except for their purpose. Regulation of model aircraft was not on FAA's agenda for the ARC. AMA was invited to participate as an 'expert witness' regarding what a model airplane is.

Somehow, regulation of model aircraft got slipped into the agenda of the ARC, even though that was not FAA's intent. Who do you suppose put that reeking pile of manure on the table? For a clue, look to post #7 above, at the laundry list of rules proposed for regulation of model airplane operation, and compare it to the AMA Safety Code, for way too many examples to be coincidental.

"Accepted Model Aircraft Standards and Procedures may be established and administered by a community-based association." How many such community-based associations have been allowed to exist by the one with the biggest bankroll, and who do you think brought this concept to the sUAS ARC? Was it FAA or the 'commercial' industry representatives or anyone else that AMA officials are pointing their fingers at?

"We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us" - Walt Kelly

Abel

Silent-AV8R

That's right Abel, the big bad AMA contrived the whole deal in order to deprive non-AMA modelers of enjoying the hobby and to expand their evil empire. There is no other rational explanation, is there?

Maybe you need to loosen up the Tin Foil hat a bit.

Hossfly

If there is something "....just silly.", to me it is how so many can turn their heads, look the other way, and REFUSE to "THINK" even if they were adequately talented to do so. I take the rest of your post as sarcasm against those that might THINK as close to what I THINK (post 26 or about depending on the tape the editors leave on the floor),

OK silent, more sarcasm. No problem with disagreeing, however I think Abel is zeroed in on the topic situation. Somewhere in the back of my mind, there is an old fable-like story about, "They came to take ...." whatever - I don't remember "..... but I said nothing." That goes on for a number of things, then the last one; "They came to take ME, and no one spoke up because no one was left to speak up."
Blind obedience to any cause can well tighten up the shorts when push comes to shove. Your old boss, Hanson, took an AMA job to be an FAA go-between. How could one not be willing to investigate that after all this time of FAA leaving us alone, AMA would pass up an opportunity to obtain multiple % increases in the membership rolls while being able to make AMA membership almost a mandatory item for RC fliers? Definitely Not me, and IMO, possibly not Able, or CP.


Horrace Cain

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Silent-AV8R

Sorry Hoss, but I often use sarcasm to make a point, especially when dealing with absurd ideas. You and Abel seem to share the idea that AMA has some hidden agenda or that the evil empire of Muncie is acting counter to the best interests of not only their members, but modelers in general, especially in this situation.

I love the silly term "my old Boss". Makes it seems so much more than what it is. Rich is a long time friend for whom I have the highest regard and trust, and honestly I find it offensive that you think that there is "something going on" as it were. So yes, when confronted with what I see as lunatic fringe conspiracy theories I will resort to sarcasm.

I for one am glad that we have a person with the integrity and professional background of Rich Hanson spearheading this effort for the AMA and modelers in general. I shudder to think what may come to pass if you guys had your wish and the AMA had stayed out of it all together.

ira d

I think Hoss and Able are on to something in fact when I first read the proposed rules I was thinking pretty much along the same lines as they are.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

i agree 100% with able and the hossman on this.
been actually wondering how long it would take able to get involved with this one.

abel_pranger

If you want to see the whole the mess that AMA has signed us up for, look [link=http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showatt.php?attachmentid=2520222]HERE[/link].

Abel

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

yeah, if you aint an ama member and flying from a chartered club site, you aint flying nuthin but a park flyer.