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.

I think the problem we see here (in this and similar forums) is that some modelers see the hobby evolving...In that vein they are sometimes afraid of the future and in their mind becoming somehow irrelevant... so they make cases, however outlandish to maintain the comfort they are accustom. I've experienced this phenomenon up close and personal with the advent of 3D and giant scale ARF modeling...Still being ostracized to some degree in many regards... so I understand the plight FPVers are experiencing now.

Whatever your beliefs and actions are regarding our hobby and advances in available technology, it would be wise not to poke your finger in the eye of the FAA, CIA, FBI, DHS or to "test" them unless you have a very secure place to hide. As for rules, one need only look at the evolution of what we consider the norm today. The automobile comes to mind. When cars began to appear, did not horse drawn wagon owners and car owners differ about who should use the trails and how they should be used.? Rules of the road resulted. Then safety issues appeared as people began to kill themselves with these infernal rigs. Ahhh -- seat belts, rubber bumpers, safety glass, turn signals, back up lights, brake lights, padded dashes, and the list goes on. Or how about in the manufacturing field. People lost fingers, hands, arms, eyes and their lives in some machinery until the safety folks got involved and shields and interlocks were installed on every moving piece of equipment. Are we better off today because of it? Certainly. But there are still folks that think seat belts are not needed or that smoking is actually good for you. That's their opinion and they are unlikely to change. Unfortunately, today we have an over abundance of lawyers that fall into this "rules" discussion as well. Back to the topic. I embrace anything in our hobby that results in someone having fun at the field flying whatever they "brung" so long as they follow the rules in place at that field. I do not embrace GPS guided flight however because the owner is not flying -- a computer is. I do embrace it for commercial purposes. What fun would it be to launch any number of GPS guided craft and than sit in a chair chatting with everyone until the darned thing landed. FPV is a different story and I embrace that technology. This is the beauty of a society where opinions can be expressed -- generally without physical or emotional harm.

These people seemed to enjoy it http://www.ted.com/talks/raffaello_d...adcopters.html

Excellent post and EXCELLENT +++ attitude there, Mr. Uncas. Hang with it! :o :rolleyes:

Seems other posts wiggled in while I was typing (fingering) my post to UNCAS.

:cool: cool

I think you misunderstood my point.
I am not anti-technology, I am not afraid of the future or of becoming irrelevant. I will someday try FPV. It looks exciting to me and the the limiting factor is budget, not fear. It is the focus of the AMA that I was speaking to and levels they are willing to go to embrace this technology. There is a difference between participating in a hobby and endorsing or encouraging participation in non hobby uses of this technology. In the MA arcticle statements were written such as "FPV hobbyists have used their aircraft to study thermal variations in rivers to help restore native fish habitats." This is a non hobby activity that was endorsed in the arcticle. This is not part of the hobby. The AMA has nothing to do with this type of activity nor should it. That is the nature of my concern. Staying within the limits of the hobby, otherwise we are inviting government oversight.

I get what you are saying, but I think you are wrong with your example about studying thermal variations in rivers. I have read about several FPVers that enjoy using their models to conduct archeological and geographic research, done in a hobby manner, not for profit and not as a job. I see absolutely nothing wrong with a hobbyist doing ecological research with their FPV models and using that info to help local entities on a volunteer basis. Again, not for pay, not as a job and not sponsored by government, military or private enterprise. The AMA can and should support this type of FPV hobby activity.

The true dividing line is whether or not the FPV/UAS model is being flown as a job or for profit, or as a government, military or private enterprise project. When you get into these catagories, the AMA should not be involved, as the activity is no longer a hobby activity.

I think that Uncas makes a good point. The AMA article highlights some non "hobby" uses. To me, regardless of type, be it fixed wing or rotary wing a model aircraft is to be flown line of sight and see and avoid. I have no problem with someone flying at the club field with a quadcopter or a plane with a camera as long as it stays within the boundaries of the field. Even flown in FPV mode as long as it remains in the designated area that would be ok. But isn't the idea of autonomous flight to be able to travel out beyond the restrictions of our eyesight? I know that the AMA has rules for FPV, and if followed, FPV can be safely done. But how many people want to spend money on FPV just to be able to fly in the pattern with the rest of us? The argument that I often hear is that "if I can't do FPV at the club field, I'll just go to a park." Any person that thinks that's acceptable is someone that I wouldn't want in my club anyway.

There are always those who delight in "pushing the envelope". It was tolerated in the past when the "envelope" was huge, but today the "envelope" is greatly restricted by government regulations. It is these "envelope pushers" I worry about. Some push carefully with intelligence and an eye to safety, some do not.

Push too far and we all suffer with new regulations and restrictions. We are being watched today as NEVER before, we have few friends in congress and our activity is often viewed in a poor light. We must be vigilant.

Well said, Thomas. I found myself in agreement with Uncas and Hoss et al on this, and you added a necessary condition that was nagging at me for inclusion. The line you mentioned in your last para has become a familiar, reasonable, and recognized distinction that defines our models as the focus of a worthwhile hobby activity (in itself, though not yet so clearly re support of other hobby interests), with a safety record that warrants separation from other aircraft as to regulation. No other attribute than being exclusively for hobby use has been satisfactory as to unambiguously separating our models from regulated aircraft. Recent 'chatter' in MA columns of some AMA officers and managers seem to be appealing to members for support of ventures (i.e., $$$ driven) into the realm of commercial and public SUVs, and while that may be good for revenue flow, it isn't likely to be good for modelers.

cj

049flyer makes some real good points...if we quit pushing the envelope it no doubt will close.

Sorry for my poor execution but my post was more general in nature...actually agreeing... just giving some rationale.. and not an admonishment to yours.

In my opinion, the AMA hitching their (our) wagon to the new 'drone' movement is not a bold, forward thinking embrace of new technology; they are simply following the money and it sickens me. Much like the NRA pimping themselves to the tactical crowd when the assault weapons ban was lifted, the AMA is wooing a group who could care less about rifles (model airplanes). Instead they use our ready made industry and infrastructure to pursue their hobby while trying to hide under our organizational umbrella. LET THEM CREATE THEIR OWN SPECIAL INTEREST LOBBY.
Unfortunately, now the AR-15 has become the public face of the NRA. In the near future what will the public face of the AMA be? A model airplane(?) or a camera equipped multi-rotor (crashing into a building, with great video to post for the world to see).


Full disclosure:
I am a current NRA member; one of my guns is a S&W M&P 15-22 which my son and I use in tactical small bore competition.
I am a current AMA member; I have owned and flown several small multi-rotors. They are fun… but NOT a model airplane.
Eric

One thing you "I'll do what I want" people don't understand is that our HOBBY is an exception to the rules. It is NOT the rule. Once you start making money from your photos you are no longer covered by the hobby exception! And worse yet once you start pushing beyond the "guidelines" and flaunting it on the Internet you are hurting the entire hobby. You *&^%$ (I wish I could say what I mean but the mods will delete my post) are going to destory our hobby just so you can have your "fun".

With the large numbers of videos on Youtube showing FPV's flying over buildings and people, the AMA needs to recognize that this cannot be controlled. And when people say that the hobby once looked down on helicopters and giant scale because they were "new" technology. I would remind them that the difference is that they fly "line of sight, see and avoid." When I open the AMA magazine and see adds for FPV, it's like the NRA advertising shoulder fire missiles. In a time when flying fields are hard to come by, any bad press about a "drone" hurts the hobby.