Embracing new technologies
 

Hey guys, did you get the email from AMA about "Embracing new technologies"? http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/blo...ent-bob-brown/



Seems AMA is trying to stay relevant by recognizing FPV and the multi rotor platform. Very cool...Kudos AMA!!!

May have to get one too. Looks like fun!

yeah,
that video was leaked on multirotors.com about a week ago.
hope he speaks for the majority of the council.

Good job Dave !!

It is important that those that do not represent those core AMA values do not get elected to any office in the AMA. If a person gets to old and get's stuck in the past it's important that they step down and let a younger generation take over. I'm so thankful Bob Brown got elected president, he is older but is forward thinking and willing to learn new things.

Luke

I thought that AMA had always represented any RC flying model? It it be multiroter or flying lawnmower!

There may well be some kind of disagreements in that "looking forward" / new thing learning within AMA's business. Way back in 1996 a couple guys I well know, offered a fair amount of up-front money for AMA to set up a really nice camp area for trailers such as 5th wheels. Some would be a donation and some was to be a loonnnggg term loan at something like 1 or 2% or whatever AMA could handle. One of these guys had just laid down $250,000.00 cash so a Club could build a very nice flying facility on
property they could then purchase. That club is still a fine group, on a fine facility they own. The offers to AMA were real and of extremely low cost.
Now an AMA District VP who chaired AMA's Facilities Committee nixed the offer for AMA. The current AMA camp area could be a whole lot larger and much better founded had that DVP been "...forward looking and willing to learn..." :rolleyes: Any guess who that person is?
Now the AMA has finally got to setting up a Foundation. The person that offered AMA cheap money, and provided for a club to have a fine facility, has beat the drums for years that AMA should follow the Foundation route, which other aviation and various organizations have done for years.. Now, pure speculation on my part, but I dare say that the go-ahead for the project did not attain birth through the current AMA President. Of course the bad part of the Foundation is that it can HIRE and pay salaries and such to the Executive Board, which AMA as a non-profit cannot do.

In my opinion it will be interesting to see just who does the hoop-jumping and where the "forward-thinking" will originate from. WHO and whom will the paid directors be!!!!?? :confused: You can bet "The Shadow Knows". :o

I am all for the latest technology in small UAV's. It costs an excessive amount of money to get into a full-scale plane with an instructor just to see the ground. However, I think aerial photography with the smaller UAV's (even cameras mounted on a model airplane with a guidance system and full FPV functions) can be a potential money maker for a lot of people. There is no possibility that the FAA will ever require a medical certificate to operate one of these robots, so anybody with any RC flying experience can have their cake and eat it, too. So stick that into your pipe and SMOKE it, FAA.

LOL...Your post seems on target...but as far as the FAA not ever requiring whatever...just give them time and they will...We are just ate up with it...it's inherent in our nature...some get a bigger dose of that gene than others...man tends to defer responsibility, if by nothing else sheer default, to some authoritative oversight...Genuine freedom and personal responsibility is just a concept for minds to exercise. When you get right down to it, people are afraid of liberty and freedom as it requires work...much easier to defer to some other entity to take care of that responsibility for you...and since that entity is comprised of man, they can only make restrictions to lessen their workload... Just the thought that some entity can bring us more liberty is flawed...they can only take away...not add...simple.

"NorfolkSouthern", me-thinks you have never had any real experience with the FAA. The FAA is an item associated with the Federal Government. In all reality, they can do pretty much whatever they so wish. Elsewhere in these forums, I have stated, my personal experiences being stung and FAA's trying to sting by some very strong factors that came from the FAA during my 41 years driving flying- machines, military and airline, around the sky. Others have experienced far worse than mine. In this world, anyone that makes a statement using the term, "There is no possibility ...will ever..." says to me that such person does not associate with the old theme, "It is not so much the thing/s that you don't know that will hurt you, nearly as much as those ITEMS THAT ONE KNOWS FOR CERTAIN, THAT AIN'T SO!" Git muh drift thar' Ol' Pard? Have a happy Holiday Season!

Our resident luxury jet pilot had a drone at the field the other day. It was a semi/fully autonomous quad-copter. I had never seen this type of model as being within the scope of our hobby before. You don't really fly it. You tell it where to go. Anyway, he attached his I-Phone to the device and launched it. His father then dialed the phone from an I-Pad. He used a FaceTime APP to attain live video from the machine. It was pretty neat. And it would be excellent for inspecting my chimney cap !

Yes, TAB, and you well know that if that action was taken at the facility both you and I visit most, that there are , at times, lots of airliners are turning to final approach there, at (too many years since I "been there, done that" and the facility was not there until I retired UAL) so I don't know exactly how high they are now. YOU know that far better than I can guess! :o My point here is that I watched such a demonstration there (if where I am thinking) and the machine went right up into the overcast for some time before recovery was initiated. It was an excellent demonstration, however Such into the fan blades of an airline could ruin a day for some folks. They don't have ejection seats! In my day before UAL, I did. Still I avoided flocks of birds. !! Still got a few! :(

I seriously doubt that a 6 ounce piece of frangible plastic is going to kill a jet engine. I would need proof. Oh by the way: Yes, the FAA has my name on their database, because of some meds I took over 20 years ago. SO FRIGGIN WHAT. I'd have nothing to lose if my quad copter got sucked into a turbine. Nobody would get hurt anyway. Again, where's the proof? Screw the FAA. I'll do what ever I darn well please.

WOW! Very IMPRESSIVE! Maybe I just don't have your courage. Turbine Failure in heavy rain during a go around at about 100 feet AGL, Several Losses of an engine on take-offs, Loss of 12'' off top of rudder by lightening strike, # of losses of hydraulic systems, Number of bird strikes, en route stop to offload a drunk flight attendant, :cool:, Brake failures on landings, denying a FAA check-airman access to the cockpit (2 calls into court for that - He lost!) yet I have no definite clues or want any features, and definitely no absolutes to reaction with FAA or any police. You Got 'em all as far as I am concerned. :rolleyes: Go git 'em Big Daddy. BTW you might ask TX Air Boss about some of his experiences with FAA. He knows a "L" of a lot more than me as he was on the other end!

NorfolkSouther,

You probably deserve a award for the greatest yank of the year...you almost tore ole Hoss's lips off...

Merry Christmas everybody!

No a 6 oz quad-copter is not a problem. But what is the maximum weight that a quad-copter can weigh.

Might have a problem then.

Never under estimate the ability of any government agency to stick their nose where it doesn't belong, bringing grief to unsuspecting folks in the process.

Do you watch the news at all? Any idea what mischief the IRS has been involved with lately? Still think the FAA will stay out of our business?

Better hope it is JUST the FAA and not DHS!

Well, my understanding is that the FAA has no interest in model airplanes. But, they can still be used as drones, none the less. And that's one area where the FAA shows its ignorance. You can now take a .40 sized Cub, fit it with an electric motor, a camera, and an iPhone and you're in the R/C photography business, as long as there is no money trail. You're just flying a model airplane, and took a pic of your friend's house. I seriously doubt if anybody would care. People were flying R/C back in the 1970's, and there was one neighbor of my uncle who had one. He could have just as easily equipped it with a Kodak instamatic and shutter servo if he wanted to. Who would know?

people seem to forget that the frangible foam going through a turbine is not what does the damage, it is the rather solid and somewhat combustible/flammable battery, the rather solid electric motor/motors, and the not exactly soft rx and flight controller that will damage the turbine.

ever see one of the videos of some nut chopping open a charged liPo battery?

I've seen the LiPo battery videos. But let me ask you this: Since WHEN was the last time a model airplane flew through a jet's turbine? Is it even possible?

I'd be at least as worried about internal combustion powered models. Not sure why we fixate on electrics so much as the very first FPV model that I knew about was glow powered... That is still a very viable means...

I think it's mostly because the electrics are silent, and don't give off any kind of trail. The military uses electrics in some of their smaller drones, simply to avoid detection.

True and all but from the perspective of a full scale pilot a gas powered FPV has little difference in most respects... They would not be audible to them and they leave no detectable smoke trail...

Hey, are you trying to put your hook in me now??? LOL

I'm not quite sure what I'm doing. I'll admit, I would make a lousy attorney. Anyway, It's not the full-scale pilots who have to worry. They have smart missiles to contend with, not a little electric Super Cruiser that will determine the fate of the enemy ground troops.

Jeepers, so many questions. The short answer is that I really don't know the answers. This wasn't my specialty. But I do know a little about the drone that we flew the other day. It was from Horizon. All the tech data is on the website. I believe in autonomous mode the GPS limits the craft's height to 50 meters AGL. And it was very small. Any higher than that and it would be very difficult to see.
The Class B shelf over Jetero bottoms out at 3000MSL, (I think, my sectional is literally an antique). I imagine the controllers must keep the arrivals above that, but I'm not certain.

What would happen if your small drone was ingested ? Again, just guessing here. But I suspect the point of contact would be the FBI. At least on the criminal side of things. Then the airline would pursue you in civil court. I'm not certain what those big GEs cost, but its likely more than the AMA can scrape together. The question remains if this would be prosecuted as an act of terror, but I suspect it would. There are a whole bunch of people working under the DHS umbrella and most of them are itching to prosecute someone, anyone at all. (a la Maytag Repair Man Syndrome). Personally, I wouldn't even joke about something like this.

It to bad that all this energy go'es for AMA . When we should be replace the issue in Washington ALL of them !!

I think that FPV technology is great and shows great promise for our hobby, as long as the AMA stays within the boundaries of the hobby.

If someone decides to use his FPV aircraft to do inspections or perform a service then that person is on his own and outside the AMA hobby boundary. That person should have his own insurance and be liable for his activities. The arcticle in the December edition of MA "FPV: Friend or Foe?" eludes to doing community service and giving back to the community using this technology. When someone does that - to me he is now outside the hobby and should not be supported by the AMA. I do not want my hobby hurt by these activities even if the intentions are good.