So, what were those products?

Here's the video from last November. The Remote ID discussion begins at 33:40. Tyler Dobbs says the AMA team had been meeting with developers for over a year, meaning this effort has been going on for close to 2 years now. Yet nothing to report?



Chad Budreau: "We are very actively engaged in this. We're not just sitting on our hands."

What about those inside the SFRA ... are you say there's been no denials?
And what about overflight of roads, homes, and occupied buildings ... are you saying none of those have been denied either?

And of course, of those for which we've received answers, what's the approval, denial rates?

The world wonders...

Because that's who the membership continues to vote for.

The last update from Tyler Dobbs was in June? (it's undated). Despite all the jabbering about how actively involved AMA is in RID development, so far no cheap stand-alone module for modelers. The original article was in May and lists four modules from around $90 (DroneTag) to over $350 with shipping, with only one from the US.
https://www.modelaviation.com/Remote...-Module-Update

Thanks Barracuda. Around $100 on the low end. That will be barrier to entry. For drones they are as cheap as $39.

Ok, but money is money and you have to compare. If you say that a one-time $100 is a barrier, and it no doubt is, then so too is the YEARLY $85 for AMA plus more for club fees.

Joining a club and paying AMA for additional liability insurance is a choice.
The other is forced on you by the government.

Not if you subscribe to what Echo24 says. He says it is forced on you by the AMA and private landowners.

It's all a choice. There are rules, yes, but we are talking about a frivolous activity. Still a choice.

Astro

A barrier to new people just starting out, not so much for those who already have aircraft and radios. That's the flaw in Flight Test's FRIA plan. Flight Test sells cheap foam and cardboard planes. You can see their thinking on integrating flying fields and marketing their products to a captured audience, but they're adding costs to the segment of the hobby that can least afford it.

Look around, gas is expensive, food is expensive, housing is expensive.....modeling always has been and always will be a discretionary activity for those who can afford it. I will agree that it is beneficial to keep costs down as much as possible, but as with any discretionary activity, it will always be a, "pay to play" venture.

Astro

How is an annual fee for AMA membership and club membership not a barrier? How many people leave the hobby as the costs pile up? Heck, AMA's own financial data shows a relationship between dues increases and decreasing membership revenue (below what it was before the increase) approx 2-5 years later.

That's exactly what I'm saying about Flight Test moving into fixed flying fields. It will add costs that their demographic can least afford, younger, entry-level people. Flight Test would have been better off trying to come up with a $40 RID module for their existing base. I was a big fan but now I don't know what to think after watching Josh Bixler in that YouTube video still pitching backyard FRIAs. I get that he wants to keep up enthusiasm but he's not being honest.

In the video is a link to FPV Freedom Coalition's response to FAA's Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment for FRIAs (linked in FPVFC's response). If you read all the different environmental categories that can cause a FRIA to be rejected you can see why Flight Test is concerned. Things like "Visual Effects", i.e., someone objects to just the sight of RC model planes in the air. Or "Affected Environment":

"Visual and aesthetic resources are the natural and man-made features that constitute an area’s visual character. They include the landscape character (what is seen),
visual sensitivity (human preferences and values regarding what is seen), scenic integrity (degree of intactness and wholeness in landscape character), and landscape
visibility (relative distances of seen areas) of a geographically defined viewshed."

Even dodging some of the more esoteric ones that FPVFC skipped over, FPVFC's response concludes:

"If we understand the statement from 4.4.3 quoted above correctly, this means that existing locations do not require an endangered species or other wildlife investigation as
described in 4.4.3 but new locations requesting a FRIA do. If we understand the statement in 4.4.3 correctly, our judgement is this will dramatically reduce the total number of FRIAs
and will raise the cost of applying for a FRIA beyond any organization we have encountered in over 50 years of flying RC model aircraft."

Do you think that fields should be exclusively "AMA"? Why would it add any more cost for a field to be associated with FT than with AMA?

Astro

Do you think FT will have flying fields in the same manner as AMA and at less cost?

I don't know what FT has planned. I see no reason why a club could not achieve the same results as AMA affiliated sites at similar costs, do you?

Astro

My Speedy Sense says no but I’m willing to say I can wait to see what happens.

Keep in mind, AMA doesn't have flying sites(Except for Muncie), so your question is ambiguous.

I don't view fields as "AMA" fields, and I think it is erroneous to do so. I would say, "AMA-affiliated club/field" would be a more appropriate and accurate term to describe them. The vast majority of clubs with fields have autonomously bought or leased the land and they simply pay AMA for insurance, sanctions, etc. The AMA does not support said club or field in any financial way (except for the relatively small number of grants and field assistance they provide from dues paid), nor are they involved in any of the day-to-day operations of said clubs/fields, as long as said clubs abide by the covenants they agreed to when applying for their charter.

Astro

Wait.....Your speedy sense says, "No" that you can't see any reason why they couldn't, or your speedy sense says, "No" they can't? If your speedy sense says, "No" they can't, what reasons does your speedy sense give, or is it based on nothing more than, "speedy sense"?

Astro

It's not that it will be more expensive, there will be no Flight Test clubs at all if the rule plays out as written. The cost of FAA's Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment for new FRIA fields will kill any new fields, whereas existing AMA fields are generally exempt from review.

What's to stop en existing club from applying for a FRIA with FT as their CBO? Nothing.

Astro

Better yet, why would they want to? What’s the advantage?