He also could have lied.

I just looked up drone and it is any Unmanned Aircraft, so I guess he would be owning a drone......

Larry/Instructor

Point is, if that person ignores the AMA rules written in the book supplied with the model aircraft, Provided of course they even have them in there now, just tosses it away without any thought, how will that person know they are violating the rules set forth for flying model aircraft? It is their actions that will cascade down to our hobby eventually and next you know, here we will sit with thousands of dollars worth of planes that was can no longer enjoy.

Knowledge is key here, so how do the buyers of these quads and such that are causing problems be taught that there are places to fly and places not to fly? How do we protect our rights to fly safely and in accordance to the AMA guidelines, and prevent the FAA and other entities of our corrupted government system from denying all of us legal flyers from our hobby?

Wow...I can only hope people that agree with and think like you are rare...but I am afraid there may be far too many now. I think we are screwed. Nothing like a depressing read on Sunday to ruin your day...Thanks again HD.

Wrong it is an unmanned aircraft that can fly autonomously or by itself with no control from the ground. IE a flying robot. From the male bee that fly's on command from the queen bee.

Hey Sport man I don't think the Male bee does much but tend the hive and the baby bees Just a guess though.
But then I'm gone flying so I don't know who wrote this comment LOL

i dont belive all the stories on the drones>>

Wikipedia shows that in nature the human male is also drone...I guess they get their programming from some third party...Hmmm...programming...where have we heard that term before???LOL

I can only guess... that's why so many human drones get so defensive about their programming...without proper programming they are completely useless.

Maybe if fledgeling drones were made to take some test of their programming knowledge that would make all the other senior human drones feel better knowing that proper programming has been installed in junior drones as well.

Ahh...now I feel better...LOL

And yet you continue on for several paragraphs about how anybody that would fly a model airplane should have the rules pounded into his head and be required to hold a certificate. Honestly HoundDog, your rationale is hard to follow.

There are things your AMA/CBO could be doing to at least try to mitigate the damage done by sensationalism in the media. They have PR people on staff and also under contract to push the image they want to convey, but it all seems designed to polish AMA itself rather than protect model aviation. In a fairly recent incident in Canada where a drone in the approach path of an airliner was the subject of media sensationalism, MAAC responded instantly and without pulling any punches to soften their outrage over the incident, and get the message out that the perp "isn't one of us." Where have the PR minions from AMA been when similar instances have occurred here? I recall in response to a news item about a court decision in the FAA case against Pirker, one of the best perps that created bad press for us, AMA issued a statement they "were studying" the matter. Apparently what they concluded from that 'study' was it might piss of the commercial sUAS crowd they are trying to romance, and so they had no comment to make on Pirker's misbehavior.

Certificates, pass/fail tests, databases. Kinda sounds like regulation to me. Who administers these tests? Who provides the certificates and maintains the database? The FAA? The AMA? HoundDog, aka the self appointed NPRM Comment Police?

I have to agree with you that AMA could and should do more(any?) PR work
on behalf of all of us.
Otoh, I chuckle a bit at your jumping on the media sensationalism bandwagon.
If there is any of that going on, it is right here in this forum!
Imo, the media have been pretty fair about the issue.
And why wouldn't they?
They are chomping at the bit waiting to get to employ this technology
to sensationalize the next big thing. Are you aware that
FAA has proposed a "micro" class of uav, which with the proper training,
licensing, and of course most importantly the exchange of MONEY, an operator can fly over the heads
of "non-participating" people---just like Pirker did!!!(sans fpv of course).
I just hope most of what gets said in this forum never gets out to the
public. Then we're really in trouble.

Good call 804, I should not have assessed the media any blame for the bad news, from our perspective. They just report what viewers would be interested in seeing because that is what sells toothpaste and toilet paper and so keeps them
ad supported.

Generally in agreement with your observation about sometimes in this forum having "met our enemy and he is us."

As for the micro class of UAS, yes I have heard of it and think it is inevitable that it will happen, like it not. If they are small enough and frangible enough to minimize the threat of injury to persons and their property, I am not opposed to the concept. OTOH, what AMA calls a park flyer for example is not innocuous enough to satisfy me in that regard.

CJ The rationale is that we have two choices. The first is to educate the media the FAA and all people that there is a right and wrong way to operate these TOYs. Model airplanes.. and every one will have to know and Follow all Rules... Second: Or some how we as CBO/AMA have to complacently separate our selves from the 500,000 Pack and single out the 175,000+- who do know and follow the Safety code and all Rules and all FAA Regs so we don't get SUCKED in to the R/C Void that is coming, as someone else quoted here It's not if but when something causes a man carrying aircraft to have an emergence or a crash and the public is hurt or killed.

CJ: If having everyone prove that they know, When, Where and how they Toys are allowed and how to prove they know the Safety code and Rules. Seems a simple test to prove one knows what they need to know is a very simple way to educate the world...If U disagree Then what do U suggest we as the knowledgeable responsible TOY AIRPLANE DRIVERS do to protect our right to continue as we have for 75 years with little interference and minimal accidents.
cj: Just What suggestions can U provide?

HoundDog, I think your 'first' proposed action is a hopeless task and there is nobody to do it. At best AMA should represent all modelers if there is to be a separation between 'us' and 'them.' The Communal Bathhouse Operation is counterproductive to separating modelers from the AP/AV users that bought their rigs (that are nearly indistinguishable from our models) from Wally World or a camera shop for use as 3D mobile camera platforms, and little to no experience that modeling provides regarding the need to maintain separation from manned aircraft or putting people on the ground at risk from our operations. AMA is the only game in town as far as representing modelers goes, but they have decided to represent only those that have paid them directly ( that is, not just as taxpayers that pick up their share of the tax burden) to do so, and further, in reply to 'second' proposed action are hell bent on chasing the $$$ that commercial users of similar craft have in their pockets, so the needed separation of interests you speak of isn't going to happen either. It's repetitive I know, but we are being sucked in with the same pool of users less likely to be well informed enough to operate safely and responsibly, and it is our AMA that is sucking us into that pool.

Being knowledgeable of the safety code and rules is no challenge to anyone with an IQ north of par golf. The simple guidance in AC 91-57 can be compressed into about two lines of text, yet it has been the essence of of rules needed to establish an excellent safety record of modelers for over 3 decades. That is the record of all modelers even though AMA claims it as their own and corrupted it with a stragegic punctuation change and added a lot of 'don't run with scissors' level of detailed rules for their own members. I think too much detail in rules defeats the purpose of having them. It seems to say "you don't have to think, just do what we say" rather than appeal to exercise of good judgement and taking responsibility for your actions, and be reminded that if/when you screw up you risk putting every other modelers freedom to fly as well as your own.

So then, I'm not really disagreeing with what you say should be done, but have some reservations about what could accomplished in a practical sense. I am suggesting that AMA members should be asking the bosses to provide some real leadership rather than chasing the gold at the end of the rainbow, building their empire and egos (as in becoming "significant," the measure of performance they have adopted for themselves - see prexy report in Mar MA edition) and instead stick to promoting and preserving model aviation per their charter. They might better use the PR force they have assembled to respond to events reported in the media that blacken our image, at least as a part-time aside from their current direction to sell/induce more AMA memberships. They might better respond to FAA proposed rule making that more rules are not needed, rather than sticking with the current posture that more rules are fine but our dues paying members should be excluded from them.

As long as RC toys are available at Wally World, people are going to do their own thing. They're not going to be bothered with taking a test and carrying a slip in their back pocket.

Then they don't fly same thing as not having a drivers licenses because they can't pass the test.

Heck, they're even hanging from the rafters at the carnival games now (not that it would be possible to win one at these rigged games).

Think the Carny has heard of the AMA, or the guy wasting his money trying to win an r/c helo with a camera that the box says will fly itself? Unlikely. They just want to get one and go buzzing around the neighborhood like they see guys doing on the 6 o'clock news.

I'm not assuming what I stated about him not living there. As soon as I can dig up the article again, I'll post it, for all to read.

@Littlecrankshaf...Are you suggesting that the cameraman, is some sort of law enforcement, who should not be eluded, especially when he hasn't been given permission to record the individual in question??? After all, isn't that what so many complaints are about in the first place, concerning so-called drones..invasion of privacy???