Go Back  RCU Forums > Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more > The Clubhouse
AMA says, "Wait to register" >

AMA says, "Wait to register"

Notices
The Clubhouse If it doesn't fit in any other category and is about general RC stuff then post it here at the Clubhouse.

AMA says, "Wait to register"

Old 01-29-2016, 10:04 AM
  #701  
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo, NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Mike, seeing things is actually not that difficult. It's relative. Sure, if we're nose to nose closing at a combined velocity of 1200 knots, it's tougher, but even then we can and do regularly note trends (like if your squadron buddy is trying to cheat a couple degrees of turn before the merge in an ACM practice engagement). I've flown hundreds of hours on low levels, never less than 360KIAS, mostly at 420 to 480, and it's not hard to see birds and such. And yet despite that, we can't always avoid them, and therein lies the risk to manned aircraft. While eye witness accounts of events are often the weakest part of criminal cases, the more trained the observer, the stronger they become. Some random stranger observing a criminal act in a store vs. say an off duty FBI agent. I would surmise that drone sightings by airline and military pilots are viewed with great credibility given the training and experience necessary to achieve those positions.

As for the zero comment, the reality is the US major carrier safety record has been zero for a number of years - despite millions of flights. I'm not going to quote exact numbers, but I do have them somewhere, as I researched the information for a presentation I give on operating discipline and safety. That's what leads me to say that the public rightfully should expect the encounters to be zero. Having been on both sides of the fence - military aviation / aviation safety programs and a hobby flier myself, I believe the number can and should be zero. There's really no valid excuse for an airline pilot to ever see a non-commercial sUAS anywhere, let alone in the airport traffic area.
I will take your word for being able to spot objects (whatever they may be) since I have no high speed flight experience.

I do agree that the expectation should be zero and that would be great if it could be achieved. The problem is that there is always going to be some idiot (include me if you want since I fly BLOS) that fliys in areas that are not safe. I think geo-fencing (at least from what I have read) is probably one of the better ideas at this point.

I know I ranted and stomped my feet in some of my posts, but I'm not against safety at all; I am against this kneejerk registration. I want to see the FAA implement something that will actually work, like maybe the geofencing idea. I'm pretty sure DJI now limits their MR's to 360 alt. Not sure if that can be hacked already. I can set all kind of limits on my Eagle Tree Vector flight controller. I would also have no problem adding some kind of small, lightweight transponder like device that can make any of my FPV craft visible to full scale craft. I would also welcome collision avoidance tech built into flight controllers used for FPV. It would just be new cool tech that can also make FPV safer. I love FPV and will continue to fly FPV no matter what the FAA decides, but at the same time I would just as willingly implement safety devices onto my FPV aircraft. I got a little long winded there, so hopefully I am making sense. lol.

Anyway, I am really only trying to argue against this FAA registration and not safety itself and to a smaller degree that BLOS can in fact be done safely, under certain circumstances and location.
Old 01-29-2016, 10:26 AM
  #702  
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
The pilot was reporting it as a near miss, So they would have been looking for radar blip near the aircraft. If above the horizon a QF-4 could be mistaken as a model near the airliner.
Wrong again. QF4's have big areas of bright orange paint. If it was a legitimate near miss with a QF4, then the paint would be easily seen. Additionally, there would have been transponder data that would have caused it to be listed as a military drone - which it was not.
Old 01-29-2016, 10:47 AM
  #703  
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Wrong again. QF4's have big areas of bright orange paint. If it was a legitimate near miss with a QF4, then the paint would be easily seen. Additionally, there would have been transponder data that would have caused it to be listed as a military drone - which it was not.
You are missing my point. It was not a near miss with a QF-4 that was reported, it was a near miss with a large jet model aircraft that was reported. I am saying it could have been a QF-4 that was off at a distance (like miles away on approach to Tindal) and light such that the orange paint would not be that noticeable. Of course even if the paint could be seen the pilot may not have known it mean't it was an Air Force drone.

Of course when pilots are telling other pilots to report any drone sighting as a near miss then I question any pilot reports. They are no saints. Just look at the numbers that recently flunked their blood tests for drugs and alcohol for example. A jury would not necessarily see their honesty as high as you apparently do.
Old 01-29-2016, 10:52 AM
  #704  
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by mike1974
I will take your word for being able to spot objects (whatever they may be) since I have no high speed flight experience.

I do agree that the expectation should be zero and that would be great if it could be achieved. The problem is that there is always going to be some idiot (include me if you want since I fly BLOS) that fliys in areas that are not safe. I think geo-fencing (at least from what I have read) is probably one of the better ideas at this point.

I know I ranted and stomped my feet in some of my posts, but I'm not against safety at all; I am against this kneejerk registration. I want to see the FAA implement something that will actually work, like maybe the geofencing idea. I'm pretty sure DJI now limits their MR's to 360 alt. Not sure if that can be hacked already. I can set all kind of limits on my Eagle Tree Vector flight controller. I would also have no problem adding some kind of small, lightweight transponder like device that can make any of my FPV craft visible to full scale craft. I would also welcome collision avoidance tech built into flight controllers used for FPV. It would just be new cool tech that can also make FPV safer. I love FPV and will continue to fly FPV no matter what the FAA decides, but at the same time I would just as willingly implement safety devices onto my FPV aircraft. I got a little long winded there, so hopefully I am making sense. lol.

Anyway, I am really only trying to argue against this FAA registration and not safety itself and to a smaller degree that BLOS can in fact be done safely, under certain circumstances and location.
Mike,

No worries. All of us have things that get under our skin from time to time. I think that many would welcome a technological solution, however unless it's mandated and enforced, there will some (AMA members even) who take the "I refuse approach." AMA can talk about what's worked for 80 years and such, but we don't live in the world of the last 80 years. The explosion of low cost, easy to fly consumer MRs has fundamentally changed the operational playing field. Heck, some could argue that even the readily available ARFs have done the same thing - as now if you crash it's just a matter of writing another check to make up for carelessness or overly aggressive flying. In the days of kit only flights, I suspect folks were much more careful when each and every rib had to be glued (without CA) - an investment of countless personal hours - and hence an incentive to not be reckless.

If FAA mandates an altitude encoding transponder of some type for certain classes / sizes of aircraft, I'd be fully supportive. I fear though that current technology might make that too expensive. Instead of using 180,000 members to try and beat down registration (which I see as a losing battle), why not use that power to drive manufacturers to develop this technology? Geofencing would be another tool, but I think to be done right would have to include an altitude sensing component, so why not just go for it all and use a transponder? I could see that some would argue size, weight, and effective radiated power issues, some of which might be valid, but I have faith in US engineering skill that they could find a solution.
Old 01-29-2016, 10:54 AM
  #705  
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
You are missing my point. It was not a near miss with a QF-4 that was reported, it was a near miss with a large jet model aircraft that was reported. I am saying it could have been a QF-4 that was off at a distance (like miles away on approach to Tindal) and light such that the orange paint would not be that noticeable. Of course even if the paint could be seen the pilot may not have known it mean't it was an Air Force drone.

Of course when pilots are telling other pilots to report any drone sighting as a near miss then I question any pilot reports. They are no saints. Just look at the numbers that recently flunked their blood tests for drugs and alcohol for example. A jury would not necessarily see their honesty as high as you apparently do.
If it was actually as you say, a QF4 at a distance, then it still would have been in radar contact and they would not have listed it at all, since radar info would have clearly identified it as such - at the great distance you describe.
Old 01-29-2016, 11:06 AM
  #706  
 
jeffrey solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Our lawsuit and abeyance is consolidated with Raphael Pirkers, UAS America Fund LLC is supporting Prikers case
and their own interests. UAS has a case #14-1156

here is UAS

The model aircraft cases are UAS America Fund LLC et al. v. Federal Aviation Administration, case number 14-1156; Council on Governmental Relations v. Federal Aviation Administration, case number 14-1157; and The Academy of Model Aeronautics Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration, case number 14-1158, all in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
[h=2]Contacts[/h] Media Contacts:
UAS America Fund, LLC
Matthew Bieschke, +1-202-499-5070
[email protected]
or
Rubenstein Associates for Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
Lynn Trono, +1-212-843-8495
[email protected]



Old 01-29-2016, 11:25 AM
  #707  
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
If it was actually as you say, a QF4 at a distance, then it still would have been in radar contact and they would not have listed it at all, since radar info would have clearly identified it as such - at the great distance you describe.
But it would not be the model airplane as the pilot described and thus ignored. It would be ignored in any event because it would not have fit into the FAA agenda that caused them to release that story.

Note no near miss report and no accident or incident, so there was no requirement to look at radar logs to see what the pilot could have actually seen. Just the pilots story at face value. He could have been seeing pink elephants for all we know.
Old 01-29-2016, 12:18 PM
  #708  
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo, NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Mike,

No worries. All of us have things that get under our skin from time to time. I think that many would welcome a technological solution, however unless it's mandated and enforced, there will some (AMA members even) who take the "I refuse approach." AMA can talk about what's worked for 80 years and such, but we don't live in the world of the last 80 years. The explosion of low cost, easy to fly consumer MRs has fundamentally changed the operational playing field. Heck, some could argue that even the readily available ARFs have done the same thing - as now if you crash it's just a matter of writing another check to make up for carelessness or overly aggressive flying. In the days of kit only flights, I suspect folks were much more careful when each and every rib had to be glued (without CA) - an investment of countless personal hours - and hence an incentive to not be reckless.

If FAA mandates an altitude encoding transponder of some type for certain classes / sizes of aircraft, I'd be fully supportive. I fear though that current technology might make that too expensive. Instead of using 180,000 members to try and beat down registration (which I see as a losing battle), why not use that power to drive manufacturers to develop this technology? Geofencing would be another tool, but I think to be done right would have to include an altitude sensing component, so why not just go for it all and use a transponder? I could see that some would argue size, weight, and effective radiated power issues, some of which might be valid, but I have faith in US engineering skill that they could find a solution.
There will always be poeple who choose the "i refuse" approach. Look at me, lol. I refuse to register or stop flying BLOS. For me, if the technology were available, and the FAA said you can fly FPV however you want (within reason of course) just add device x I would welcome that. I hate flying BLOS knowing i'm not supposed to. FPV in general is almost addicting. lol

I know what you mean about building and ARF's. My first rc plane was a GP PT-40 kit I bought with birthday money when I was 13. Built it myself. I am currently trying to finish the wing on a TF Gold Edition Corsair .60. Fuselage is done. I do enjoy the ARF market also, but because of my OCD I take care of and fly my ARF's just as I would my balsa models. I don't like spending money and then just throwing it away by flying reckless and crashing. lol.

It seems we are on the same page more than not.

EDIT... I am only bucking the registration because I truly do not believe what the FAA is doing is right and I only fly BLOS illegally because I have no path, reasonable or otherwise, to do so in a legal fashion.

Last edited by mike1974; 01-29-2016 at 12:23 PM.
Old 01-29-2016, 10:48 PM
  #709  
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Mike, There's really no valid excuse for an airline pilot to ever see a non-commercial sUAS anywhere, let alone in the airport traffic area
Like wise of the 519 towered airports in the USA with their combined ATA covering a combined Area of 5 x 5 =25 x 3.14159 = 78.53975 SQ Miles x 519 = 40,762 SQ miles of "NO FLY" area for R/C TOYs of any Kind. That includes the air space extending at a minimum of 3,000' to 10,000' AGL.

Now WHY can't we R/C TOY Flyers have a miniscule amount of Air Space protected from full scale aviation? All we need is 1/4 mile radius around all Designated R/C Flight Areas. and only upto 1500'. Half the Height and covering less than 2/10 of a SQ mile in area. Being 2400 Registered R/C Flying fields they would cover about what just the area 6 airport traffic areas cover and infinitesimally easier to circumnavigate than any towered airport.

If the FAA includes R/C TOYs as things controllable by the FAA and subject to the FAR then the NAS is also ours. We must, as a member of a CBO demand our Small Share of the NAS. After all it's our tax dollars that support the FAA in the first place.

Last edited by HoundDog; 01-29-2016 at 10:51 PM.
Old 01-30-2016, 05:29 AM
  #710  
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog
Like wise of the 519 towered airports in the USA with their combined ATA covering a combined Area of 5 x 5 =25 x 3.14159 = 78.53975 SQ Miles x 519 = 40,762 SQ miles of "NO FLY" area for R/C TOYs of any Kind. That includes the air space extending at a minimum of 3,000' to 10,000' AGL.

Now WHY can't we R/C TOY Flyers have a miniscule amount of Air Space protected from full scale aviation? All we need is 1/4 mile radius around all Designated R/C Flight Areas. and only upto 1500'. Half the Height and covering less than 2/10 of a SQ mile in area. Being 2400 Registered R/C Flying fields they would cover about what just the area 6 airport traffic areas cover and infinitesimally easier to circumnavigate than any towered airport.

If the FAA includes R/C TOYs as things controllable by the FAA and subject to the FAR then the NAS is also ours. We must, as a member of a CBO demand our Small Share of the NAS. After all it's our tax dollars that support the FAA in the first place.
+1
Old 01-30-2016, 10:44 AM
  #711  
My Feedback: (44)
 
ramcfarland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Waldorf , MD
Posts: 3,791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

I have been an AMA member since 1967 and always trusted that the AMA was representing us and to that end I'm sure they are,however in the Washington D.C. area we are shut down and until this matter is resolved I have no intention of renewing my dues. I have not a clue as to all thats involved with the legislators but I am firm in my belief that the AMA dropped the ball. Well at least I have some electrics that weigh UNDER 1/2 pound as in two sticks of butter and continue flying them on private property as my club field is closed...
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	13016 005.JPG
Views:	91
Size:	1.52 MB
ID:	2144287  
Old 01-30-2016, 11:34 AM
  #712  
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by ramcfarland
I have been an AMA member since 1967 and always trusted that the AMA was representing us and to that end I'm sure they are,however in the Washington D.C. area we are shut down and until this matter is resolved I have no intention of renewing my dues. I have not a clue as to all thats involved with the legislators but I am firm in my belief that the AMA dropped the ball. Well at least I have some electrics that weigh UNDER 1/2 pound as in two sticks of butter and continue flying them on private property as my club field is closed...
I have no intention of renewing my dues.
That will only aggravate the situation by depriving the AMA from funding they/We need to fight the FAA for our piece of the NAS for the continued SAFE Flying R/C TOYS like we have for 80+ years. We need every person that Flies any thing including Quads (Drones) to Join the AMA and the AMA possibly become over million strong. That would be a lot more influential than just our present 180K +/_ members we have know.

Then U say it's the (Drones/Quads) that have caused the problem in the first place. Yes they Have, But by getting them to Join the AMA or some "sanctioning body" With by laws and their own Safety Code they will learn of the SAFETY CODE and hopefully abide by it by stay 5 miles away from Towered air ports, or at least the will know they are in violation of certain laws and can be prosecuted. This won't stop every one but probably the vast majority. I would Hope.
Old 01-30-2016, 11:43 AM
  #713  
My Feedback: (44)
 
ramcfarland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Waldorf , MD
Posts: 3,791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

I will not re new as I stated . I do not want to get into a p-----g match HOWEVER in support of my great radio control club I plan to re new next month A.M.A. blew it ,as stated in a previous post they expanded their coverage of drones in all probability just to get more funds. I will not answer a follow up I'm p----d enough as it is.
Old 01-30-2016, 12:08 PM
  #714  
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by ramcfarland
I will not re new as I stated . I do not want to get into a p-----g match HOWEVER in support of my great radio control club I plan to re new next month A.M.A. blew it ,as stated in a previous post they expanded their coverage of drones in all probability just to get more funds. I will not answer a follow up I'm p----d enough as it is.
"I will not re new as I stated" I respect that have a great day. Hope Ya allget your field back, But isn't Home Land or the Secret Service has the FAA decide when & where their will be SFAR's? Just asking anyone.

I plan to re new next month Fantastic ... Let's go for a Million + members ... Who gives a G_G_D if the AMA is looking for more money. All the More Power to them. Especially if it makes them/us/AMA stronger and able to carry a bigger stick. I know there Navy U wont agree but then I don't care anymore. Remember Nothing matters .... cause ...
Old 01-30-2016, 02:02 PM
  #715  
My Feedback: (109)
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: AT THE AIRPORT
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

I am not going to renew either-after being contacted by a new association that is being formed as I speak-It will provide insurance for any modeling activities that I am involved and is also cheaper.
Old 01-30-2016, 02:05 PM
  #716  
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

O/K....details?
Old 01-30-2016, 02:10 PM
  #717  
 
jeffrey solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I am sure many people do not have your knowledge regarding all matters, I didn't know much about abeyance contracts so I looked it up.
I realize that you would like everyone to source you for information and decisions.
The violation of the abeyance contract by the FAA is a valid point that the AMA has considered but opted not to pursue at this point.
They have another card to play before they might pursue a court settlement.
A petition has no downside to it.
If you had mentioned a petition about a month ago, Did you think it was a good idea at the time? Did you pursue it?
I chose to contribute what I can and when I decide it can be most effective, I don't need to wait until "we tell you" to take action.

When will you be launching your website : Porciapedia lol
Old 01-30-2016, 02:30 PM
  #718  
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

LoL...keep plugging away sonny....you are amusing.
Old 01-30-2016, 02:38 PM
  #719  
Banned
My Feedback: (788)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bonita, CA
Posts: 1,101
Received 16 Likes on 9 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
LoL...keep plugging away sonny....you are amusing.
Its moments like this when the ratio of mouths to ears drives home a strong message.
Old 01-30-2016, 03:47 PM
  #720  
My Feedback: (109)
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: AT THE AIRPORT
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

[QUOTE=porcia83;12169896]O/K....details?[/Q

Yes-by invitation only
Old 01-30-2016, 03:49 PM
  #721  
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

LoL...ahh...only the select few I see. Got it.

Its moments like this when the ratio of invited versus the uninvited drives home a strong message.
Old 01-30-2016, 05:10 PM
  #722  
Banned
My Feedback: (788)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bonita, CA
Posts: 1,101
Received 16 Likes on 9 Posts
Default Benefit of the doubt, sorry, that ran out long ago.

Originally Posted by porcia83
LoL...ahh...only the select few I see. Got it.

Its moments like this when the ratio of invited versus the uninvited drives home a strong message.
All positive assumptions previously disgracefully wronged, which now only leaves one as a witness to how the characters behind your posts continues and remains the same. Very Krued.
The only remaining interpretation.
Old 01-30-2016, 05:28 PM
  #723  
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Happy 2016!
Old 01-30-2016, 06:44 PM
  #724  
Banned
My Feedback: (788)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bonita, CA
Posts: 1,101
Received 16 Likes on 9 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
Happy 2016!
Your reputation of prior years proceeds you, I do hope 2016 might be different, but the odds are slim, very VERY slim....
Old 01-30-2016, 07:29 PM
  #725  
 
jeffrey solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

No you said"LoL...keep plugging away sonny....you are amusing, like I'm funny and amusing?


You mean, let me understand this … cuz I … maybe its me, maybe I’m a little messed up maybe. I’m funny how? I mean funny, like I’m a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh? I’m here to freakin’ amuse you? Whattya you mean funny? Funny how? How am I funny?

No, no, I don't know, you said it. How do I know? You said I'm funny. How the freak am I funny, what the freak is so funny about me? Tell me, tell me what's funny!

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.