Another ordinance using Orlando's as a template...
 

AMA influence was insufficient to keep Orlando from passing an ordinance, and now another city is using that one as a template for their own.

https://flaglerlive.com/104658/drones-flagler-beach/

AMA government affairs keeps telling us they're so influential. Starting to wonder if they're believing their own rhetoric.

Sounds to me like another "knee-jerk" reaction on the part of the city. Since a majority of the city is already a no fly zone, due to the local airport and helipads, the city really needs to look at the already established areas and re-write the ordinance accordingly. As stated in the article, if the ordinance passes, it will be a race to the courts as far as who gets the fine money, the city or the FAA

No flying within 500' of a park.

I would assume that as more and more municipalities adopt similar ordinances, it will render the Park flyer program virtually extinct and membership will decrease even more.

Ironic, as the Park Flyer program was (IMO) the start of the AMA's, "romancing the drones" initiative.

I wonder what is the AMA doing to protect its Park Flyer members?

Regards,

Astro

Just reinforcing the fact that we ( the AMA) should have made a DISTINCT separation between "traditional" ( for a lack of a better word) model aviation and the "droners".

Mike

Looks perfectly reasonable and within AMA guidelines to me. I hope more cities follow their lead.
BTW, flying on city owned parks is not a right, it's a privilege granted by the city.

I agree.

I am merely pointing out, that by creating a "park flyer" category of membership, the AMA may have given the impression (or at least a "gray area") to some that, by being an AMA Park Flyer member, one may be exempt, or have special park privileges.

Astro

I don't see much significance. Except for park flyers sized aircraft they do not promote flying from parks. Rather from a chartered field. And the parkflyer people have not supported the AMA that much..

I don't see how they did that. Their rules clearly say not to fly form private property without permission and not to fly from restricted parks.

And you're assuming people that bought park flyers read the rules why?

I took AstroHogs post as only parkflyers in AMA's program. Of those I would assume most would have at least skimmed the rules.

You must not have gotten the memo titled "Those required to read the literature before use"
Everything after the title is blank, just like the faces of those that get busted for doing what they're not supposed to be doing with a quad

Not looking to be argumentative here, just clarify, but how can the AMA promite flying from chartered fields, when the AMA doesn't charter fields? There is no such thing.

I think you have the support thing backwards; the park flyer members support the AMA with their membership dues, in turn, I would think there would be an expectation that the AMA would support THEM.

Regards,

Astro

At the time that program was rolled out, I am sure there were very few parks that specifically restricted drones. Now, not so much.

You just made my point for me. Thank-You!

Regards,

Astro

Spot on.

Ironic, that back in 2014 Bob Violett sent a formal letter to AMA saying that FPV would attract unnecessary attention. He even went on to say that "It cannot be denied that FPV operations contribute to the blurring of the line of distinction between a model airplane and a sUAS."

He adds that "The AMA's opinion that somehow documents #550 and #560 will suffice to control the FPV menace, is true fantasy. The AMA has shown multiple times in the past that it is unwilling to discipline any of its members for Safety Code Violations."

Sure seems to be coming true...

http://www.bvmjets.com/Safety/AMA0714-1.pdf

I think that either you are the one that needs to read. Astrohogs post, or you need to explain what you are talking about.

Maybe charter is the wrong word? They insure fields and list them on their website. I believe the AMA did support them. Doesn't always work out. But they need to fly on property with permission or from AMA insured fields.

Flying radio control has been banned from many areas since, well forever!

Traditional R/C = Dying Breed. I am one of those but we need to understand it won't be around much longer. Well maybe in very small numbers.

To RCMIKET comment "Just reinforcing the fact that we ( the AMA) should have made a DISTINCT separation between "traditional" ( for a lack of a better word) model aviation and the "droners". "

I proposed this to the AMA president over 2 years ago and was completely blow off by him. All the drone problems we have had I outlined as something that could/would happen and still was blown off. I hope Orlando succeeds in banning drones then perhaps the rest of the country will follow suit.

I remember that well and he along with others were spot on the subject.

Mike

Many of us supported this "separation" idea to protect what we had and we all were " blown off" so don't feel alone. To this day I still disagree with the direction our organization has taken.

Mike

Most recent posted minutes from EC meeting seem to indicate the EVP floated the idea of a special membership category for "drones". The way it's mentioned leads me to believe it's an attempt to get folks who might otherwise be inclined to go to IDRA (https://www.facebook.com/droneracingassociation). The problem is, from what I see, membership in that organization is free, and you pay for insurance (primary by the way) if you want it. Not sure how AMA plans to compete with that, as AMA's insurance is secondary, and I can't see them dropping price too far - lest the rest of the membership be up in arms.

When you vote for people that are promising more government, more government is what you get.... Maybe it's time to stop voting for those who are promising more government on the "other guy".

In post 8, you said "Their rules clearly say not to fly form private property without permission and not to fly from restricted parks."
In post 9, I said "And you're assuming people that bought park flyers read the rules why?"
In post 10, you said "I took AstroHogs post as only parkflyers in AMA's program. Of those I would assume most would have at least skimmed the rules"
In post 11, I said "You must not have gotten the memo titled "Those required to read the literature before use"
Everything after the title is blank, just like the faces of those that get busted for doing what they're not supposed to be doing with a quad"
If you need an explanation, it's simple:
NOT EVERYONE READS EVERYTHING BEFORE USING A PRODUCT. MANY DON'T READ ANYTHING, JUST INSTALL BATTERIES OR ASSEMBLE AS NEEDED PER THE PICTURES AND CALL IT GOOD. AS HARD AS IT IS TO BELIEVE IN THIS ERA OF NO PATIENCE, MANY SEEM TO ASK WHY THEY SHOULD SPEND THE TIME READING WHEN, SOONER OR LATER, SOMEONE WILL TRY TO THEM WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO ANYWAY

You and I are not discussing the same issue. You are discussing product instructions and I am discussing AMA rules. There is not much motivation to read instructions, more so for AMA. Besides I think most do read the instructions. At least the get started part.