Will the FAA kill model flying...?
01-03-2020, 06:06 AM
#26
My Feedback: (26)
‘If you go over to RCGroups, the sky is falling ... of course if they are confident, then they should be selling e erythung now before there is no longer a market.
Personally if you can’t predict the weather, I doubt you can predict the future of anything.
From what I’ve read, the AMA has proposed fixed flying sites where we would essentially fly just as we always have (option3). The sites are fixed and therefore known to all other aircraft and pilots, like any other airport or field.
We will have to take a online exam ... that should not be an issue.
We May have to either log into our cellphone and identify ourselves, our airplane and location before flying ... that should not be an issue
We May have to carry a remote ID/transponder ... that may be an issue depending on size/weight.
I e been an AMA member since the 70’s. I like to believe I will be able to fly for a while longer...assuming the “drone pilots who really don’t represent AMA or pilots like the majority of us” minimize headline gathering stupidity.
Personally if you can’t predict the weather, I doubt you can predict the future of anything.
From what I’ve read, the AMA has proposed fixed flying sites where we would essentially fly just as we always have (option3). The sites are fixed and therefore known to all other aircraft and pilots, like any other airport or field.
We will have to take a online exam ... that should not be an issue.
We May have to either log into our cellphone and identify ourselves, our airplane and location before flying ... that should not be an issue
We May have to carry a remote ID/transponder ... that may be an issue depending on size/weight.
I e been an AMA member since the 70’s. I like to believe I will be able to fly for a while longer...assuming the “drone pilots who really don’t represent AMA or pilots like the majority of us” minimize headline gathering stupidity.
01-03-2020, 06:23 AM
#27
We'll see.. The people I've spoken with at the FAA want nothing to do with model aviation at all. They don't have the resources to police this stuff. The intent of the new rule IMO is to give them teeth for when a drone operator tries to fly in a restricted area such as around an airport or a TFR.
Short version is I refuse to panic.. People are getting hysterical about this, and there's no amount of that hysteria that's going to affect the lobbying money being thrown at the FAA by Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc.. So we either get behind the AMA and their efforts to keep us flying, or we can just panic.
Short version is I refuse to panic.. People are getting hysterical about this, and there's no amount of that hysteria that's going to affect the lobbying money being thrown at the FAA by Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc.. So we either get behind the AMA and their efforts to keep us flying, or we can just panic.
01-03-2020, 06:26 AM
#28
You're leaving out a few critical issues. Like the one shot at getting your field approved. After the registration period you lose your field you're done flying w/o RID (which currently does not exist) and you will probably lose your club. Let's not even get into if there is a snafu getting your club registered within the deadline. Under the proposed new rules after the registration period ends there will be no new approved sites so there can never be an event anyplace other than a club field w/o all aircraft having remote ID, which as previously stated does not exist yet. Under the proposed new rules the remote ID must be integrated in such a way that it cannot be disabled and you cannot fly if it's not working, which is just another failure mode to ground you. Don't have some kind of internet access, you don't fly. There is mention of geofencing, exactly how will that work with a conventional fixed wing aircraft? Unlike multi rotors our planes cannot just stop a certain point and hover. Also the geofencing part talks about 400' from the pilot, not 400' altitude. Good luck flying a plane of any size is a box that small.
Oops..misquoted the proposed rule. After THREE years site exemption would go away....
Last edited by tedsander; 01-03-2020 at 06:37 AM.
01-03-2020, 07:52 AM
#29
I guess I need to stop relying on what others say, and actually read the NPRM. Part way through it. As I am a traditional modeler (LOS, model planes, club flying and am focusing on that) it seems to be an attempt to carve out a clear distinction between home built aircraft and those sold essentially complete. If I fabricate at least 50% of the model (whatever that means) I don't need Remote ID ever. I presume if I buy a Bind-and-Fly, it will have to be RID compliant. Ditto for fully assembled "drones". Kits that supply everything (again, whatever that means) would also have to be RID compliant. Those with RID will have to be able to connect to a paid subscription over the internet. Those that are fully RID compliant won't even be able to take off unless they can connect to the internet, either directly or via a second device app. Those with limited RID can fly, but are restricted to 400' line of sight. So far in my reading, no mention of geo-fencing.
Just love (sarcastically) that I will have to individually register every single model I have, "amatuer built" or not.
In general, for flying sites - if initially registered by a "CBO" (ie - the AMA), then I can fly my home built model without concern or doing anything before flight, subject to whatever restrictions are specific for that site. There may be altitude or distance restrictions, but nothing specifically called out. Flying is line-of-sight. But if the craft ihas RID, then it is not further restricted just by being at an approved site. There is a provision for renewal of a flying site after an initial 48 month period.
No new clubs, and no way for a club to move to a new location. And planned elimination of flying sites. See this: "The FAA is proposing to accept applications for FAA-recognized identification areas within 12 calendar months of the effective date of a final rule. At the end of that 12-month period, no new applications for FAA-recognized identification areas would be accepted. After that date, the number of FAA-recognized identification areas could therefore only remain the same or decrease. Over time, the FAA anticipates that most UAS without remote identification will reach the end of their useful lives or be phased out. As these numbers dwindle, and as compliance with remote identification requirements becomes cheaper and easier, the number of UAS that need to operate only at FAA-recognized identification areas would likely drop significantly." THIS is what will completely kill the hobby!
As tripped me up in the above posts, there are other phrases that seem to be contradictory, so irrespective of the overall document, it needs lots of editing to be internally consistent!
Just love (sarcastically) that I will have to individually register every single model I have, "amatuer built" or not.
In general, for flying sites - if initially registered by a "CBO" (ie - the AMA), then I can fly my home built model without concern or doing anything before flight, subject to whatever restrictions are specific for that site. There may be altitude or distance restrictions, but nothing specifically called out. Flying is line-of-sight. But if the craft ihas RID, then it is not further restricted just by being at an approved site. There is a provision for renewal of a flying site after an initial 48 month period.
No new clubs, and no way for a club to move to a new location. And planned elimination of flying sites. See this: "The FAA is proposing to accept applications for FAA-recognized identification areas within 12 calendar months of the effective date of a final rule. At the end of that 12-month period, no new applications for FAA-recognized identification areas would be accepted. After that date, the number of FAA-recognized identification areas could therefore only remain the same or decrease. Over time, the FAA anticipates that most UAS without remote identification will reach the end of their useful lives or be phased out. As these numbers dwindle, and as compliance with remote identification requirements becomes cheaper and easier, the number of UAS that need to operate only at FAA-recognized identification areas would likely drop significantly." THIS is what will completely kill the hobby!
As tripped me up in the above posts, there are other phrases that seem to be contradictory, so irrespective of the overall document, it needs lots of editing to be internally consistent!
Last edited by tedsander; 01-03-2020 at 07:54 AM.
01-04-2020, 01:50 AM
#30
Thread Starter
There's another fly in the detailed ointment...
It appears that amateur built UAS are exempt from the production standards.
The problem is the definition of 'amateur'...
I've lifted this from DIY Drones, a post by Patrick McKay.
He decribes it better than I can.
Link to post...
It appears that amateur built UAS are exempt from the production standards.
The problem is the definition of 'amateur'...
I've lifted this from DIY Drones, a post by Patrick McKay.
He decribes it better than I can.
Link to post...
I want to clear up a myth about the FAA's proposed remote ID rules that I've been seeing floating around. People think that amateur home-built model aircraft will be largely unaffected by this, since they can just fly at AMA fields. Or people think that to build and fly model aircraft outside of AMA fields, all they would have to do is slap some kind of transponder on their model and they are good to go. This is completely wrong. This proposal will effectively outlaw home-built model aircraft as most people actually build them.
The reason for this is the production standards. The proposal contains two completely different types of rules: operational rules and production rules. The operational rules allow UAS without remote ID to be flown at a FRIA site. The production standards prohibit anyone from producing a UAS that does not comply with the remote ID rules, regardless of whether it is even flown. Just building a UAS for private use that does not comply with remote ID is a violation of the law, unless one qualifies for an exemption from the production rules.
Many people (including the AMA apparently) read that amateur-built models are exempt from the production requirements and think that means they're fine. However, the devil is in the details, which in this case is the definition of amateur-built, which "means an unmanned aircraft system the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation."
The FAA's proposal clarifies that this means more than 50% of the total components in the Unmanned Aircraft System (which includes the ground control station) must be fabricated and assembled by the hobbyist. Home-built models using mostly parts that are pre-fabricated and purchased separately are expressly excluded from this exemption:
UAS assembled completely from pre-fabricated parts. The FAA anticipates that some model aircraft enthusiasts may assemble UAS entirely from pre-fabricated parts and that commercial vendors may wish to sell UAS parts, including packages that contain more than 50 but less than 100 percent of the parts necessary to build a UAS. The resulting UAS would not qualify as amateur-built because the person building it would be fabricating and assembling 50 percent or less of the UAS. The UAS would not qualify as built from a kit because it did not include 100 percent of the necessary parts. Under these circumstances, the person assembling the UAS would be considered the producer and would be required to comply with the design and production requirements of proposed subpart F. (NPRM p. 152.)
We’ll leave aside the fact that the proposed regulation provides no way to quantify parts. Raw number of all components down to individual chips on circuit boards? Number of black-boxed components like receivers and flight controllers? Total mass? As currently written, the amateur-built exception to the production requirements would not apply to the vast majority of modelers.
Even assuming parts are quantified by black-boxed components, most amateur model aircraft would fall into the pre-fabricated, rather than amateur-built category, as most people assemble model aircraft from a collection of pre-fabricated parts they buy separately from various manufacturers. They might buy the airframe as a pre-cut styrofoam body (for planes) or carbon fiber sections (for quads), then glue/screw it together and mount and wire up motors, flight controllers, speed controllers, receivers, and cameras and video transmitters for FPV craft.
The most anyone ever fabricates themselves is the aircraft body. Nobody is fabricating their own receivers, speed controllers, lithium batteries, motors, or remote controllers, so virtually no model aircraft hobbyists would actually qualify for the amateur-built exception which requires more than 50% of parts (however that is quantified) to be fabricated and assembled by the builder.
The vast majority of RC hobbyists would fall under the category of using more than 50% prefabricated parts that do not come as a single kit with 100% of the parts necessary to fly. The proposed regulation would treat such modelers as UAS producers, and would require them to comply with all the production standards to produce and certify a UAS as RID compliant. This process is long and convoluted, and is clearly contemplated to only be used by large corporations developing mass produced UAS to be sold to consumers (the proposal estimates this process would only ever be used by a few hundred corporate entities).
Let’s assume a hobbyist could even comply with the technical requirements to equip a model with remote ID (doubtful given the tamper-resistant requirement which would at minimum prohibit the use of open source flight controllers and could be interpreted to require the person who built the model to somehow prevent himself from bypassing the remote ID system). The certification process requires the purchase of multiple standards that could cost hundreds of dollars to even read, and the filing of extensive forms and reports with the FAA that is estimated to exceed over 50 pages and take hundreds of man hours to produce. It would be completely impossible for any individual hobbyist to comply with these procedures for their home-built model aircraft.
Thus as written in the currently proposal, building your own home-built model aircraft the way the vast majority of hobbyists actually do that would be illegal. It doesn’t matter where you fly them, or even if you fly them at all. Merely building a UAS without equipping it with remote ID and following the process to certify it with the FAA would be an independent violation of the law. It goes without saying that this would be completely unenforceable, but that’s not the point. Legally at least, this proposal will completely outlaw home-built RC model aircraft as they are actually made by hobbyists.
The FAA attempted to disguise this by putting in the amateur-built exemption, and then defining it in such a way as it will be impossible to actually qualify for. I fully expect the AMA to fall for this trick and act like everything is fine because of the amateur-built exemption and the FRIA sites, because they have always sucked at statutory interpretation and anticipating how regulations affecting model aircraft will actually be applied (Sec. 336 anyone?). That’s even without considering that the FRIA exemption for AMA fields is only intended to be temporary and will be phased out over time, leaving hobbyists with nowhere to fly where they are not subject to the operational remote ID requirements.
No matter what the AMA says, this regulation will be the death of amateur home-built model aircraft, period. It doesn’t matter if it’s a quadcopter or traditional RC plane, flown by an AMA member or not. We’re all affected by this equally, and all RC hobbyists have a duty to oppose this regulation wholesale as bringing about the extinction of our hobby.
The reason for this is the production standards. The proposal contains two completely different types of rules: operational rules and production rules. The operational rules allow UAS without remote ID to be flown at a FRIA site. The production standards prohibit anyone from producing a UAS that does not comply with the remote ID rules, regardless of whether it is even flown. Just building a UAS for private use that does not comply with remote ID is a violation of the law, unless one qualifies for an exemption from the production rules.
Many people (including the AMA apparently) read that amateur-built models are exempt from the production requirements and think that means they're fine. However, the devil is in the details, which in this case is the definition of amateur-built, which "means an unmanned aircraft system the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation."
The FAA's proposal clarifies that this means more than 50% of the total components in the Unmanned Aircraft System (which includes the ground control station) must be fabricated and assembled by the hobbyist. Home-built models using mostly parts that are pre-fabricated and purchased separately are expressly excluded from this exemption:
UAS assembled completely from pre-fabricated parts. The FAA anticipates that some model aircraft enthusiasts may assemble UAS entirely from pre-fabricated parts and that commercial vendors may wish to sell UAS parts, including packages that contain more than 50 but less than 100 percent of the parts necessary to build a UAS. The resulting UAS would not qualify as amateur-built because the person building it would be fabricating and assembling 50 percent or less of the UAS. The UAS would not qualify as built from a kit because it did not include 100 percent of the necessary parts. Under these circumstances, the person assembling the UAS would be considered the producer and would be required to comply with the design and production requirements of proposed subpart F. (NPRM p. 152.)
We’ll leave aside the fact that the proposed regulation provides no way to quantify parts. Raw number of all components down to individual chips on circuit boards? Number of black-boxed components like receivers and flight controllers? Total mass? As currently written, the amateur-built exception to the production requirements would not apply to the vast majority of modelers.
Even assuming parts are quantified by black-boxed components, most amateur model aircraft would fall into the pre-fabricated, rather than amateur-built category, as most people assemble model aircraft from a collection of pre-fabricated parts they buy separately from various manufacturers. They might buy the airframe as a pre-cut styrofoam body (for planes) or carbon fiber sections (for quads), then glue/screw it together and mount and wire up motors, flight controllers, speed controllers, receivers, and cameras and video transmitters for FPV craft.
The most anyone ever fabricates themselves is the aircraft body. Nobody is fabricating their own receivers, speed controllers, lithium batteries, motors, or remote controllers, so virtually no model aircraft hobbyists would actually qualify for the amateur-built exception which requires more than 50% of parts (however that is quantified) to be fabricated and assembled by the builder.
The vast majority of RC hobbyists would fall under the category of using more than 50% prefabricated parts that do not come as a single kit with 100% of the parts necessary to fly. The proposed regulation would treat such modelers as UAS producers, and would require them to comply with all the production standards to produce and certify a UAS as RID compliant. This process is long and convoluted, and is clearly contemplated to only be used by large corporations developing mass produced UAS to be sold to consumers (the proposal estimates this process would only ever be used by a few hundred corporate entities).
Let’s assume a hobbyist could even comply with the technical requirements to equip a model with remote ID (doubtful given the tamper-resistant requirement which would at minimum prohibit the use of open source flight controllers and could be interpreted to require the person who built the model to somehow prevent himself from bypassing the remote ID system). The certification process requires the purchase of multiple standards that could cost hundreds of dollars to even read, and the filing of extensive forms and reports with the FAA that is estimated to exceed over 50 pages and take hundreds of man hours to produce. It would be completely impossible for any individual hobbyist to comply with these procedures for their home-built model aircraft.
Thus as written in the currently proposal, building your own home-built model aircraft the way the vast majority of hobbyists actually do that would be illegal. It doesn’t matter where you fly them, or even if you fly them at all. Merely building a UAS without equipping it with remote ID and following the process to certify it with the FAA would be an independent violation of the law. It goes without saying that this would be completely unenforceable, but that’s not the point. Legally at least, this proposal will completely outlaw home-built RC model aircraft as they are actually made by hobbyists.
The FAA attempted to disguise this by putting in the amateur-built exemption, and then defining it in such a way as it will be impossible to actually qualify for. I fully expect the AMA to fall for this trick and act like everything is fine because of the amateur-built exemption and the FRIA sites, because they have always sucked at statutory interpretation and anticipating how regulations affecting model aircraft will actually be applied (Sec. 336 anyone?). That’s even without considering that the FRIA exemption for AMA fields is only intended to be temporary and will be phased out over time, leaving hobbyists with nowhere to fly where they are not subject to the operational remote ID requirements.
No matter what the AMA says, this regulation will be the death of amateur home-built model aircraft, period. It doesn’t matter if it’s a quadcopter or traditional RC plane, flown by an AMA member or not. We’re all affected by this equally, and all RC hobbyists have a duty to oppose this regulation wholesale as bringing about the extinction of our hobby.
01-04-2020, 03:49 AM
#32
I have been flying for over 45 years now and am thinking about selling all of my airplane stuff and starting to race cars or boats again. I am sure they will find a way to regulate these as well. The Government is out of control and one day the people will decide they have had enough.
01-04-2020, 02:40 PM
#38
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been an RC junky for years, flying helicopters first, then airplanes, and now turbine jets. I am unique in a way that my job in law enforcement has given me the opportunity to fly a law enforcement helicopter, the real deal not a toy in the SF Bay Area. Flying the real helicopter and then unexpectedly coming across a fool flying a DJI drone is not fun or funny. I think the FAA is going the correct route and something that must be done in order to save lives. In my honest opinion I think an easy fix is to prohibite RC aircraft with auto pilot capabilities. The majority of idiots that fly DJI drones, or other brand drones, do not know how to fly without the use of autopilot or auto stabilization. Removing that piece of technology will roll us back to the era before DJI came around and we all know back then this was not an issue with the FAA.
01-04-2020, 03:19 PM
#39
My Feedback: (8)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They could restrict these regulations to "drones" with GPS, but they won't. It will be far easier to regulate everyone in the hobby to extinction in order to please those corporate interests that want exclusive access to the airspace above every inch of this country.
Last edited by juvatwad; 01-04-2020 at 03:20 PM. Reason: sp
01-04-2020, 04:37 PM
#40
Imho
IMHO- It is an over kill by the government for recreational line of sight UAS. I haven’t been behind the yoke for twenty years and know a lot has changed just in that amount of time. GPS navigation and approaches were just being approved. Then, you had to fly for a wealthy enough boss to have an aircraft with the navigational equipment. Glass cockpits were still a luxury in the corporate jet world. There was still 2000’ separation above FL290. I have two jet Capt buddies still flying and they talk about things that I haven’t heard of that has changed in the IFR system. This National Air navigational system has been in place for decades and improved upon depending upon who was President. This navigational system became the world leader of safety and the world has followed our system model. Captains of aircraft put their education, faith and trust, along with the lives of millions, in a system of being able to fly safely from point A to B in the blind. Coming out of the bases or at minimum’s seeing a 40% Extra or a 1/5th scale twin turbine in the windscreen could ruin the day. When I was flying, we really never concerned ourselves with rc planes. RC fields just never seem to be around airports. Quadcopter's and multi rotor drones weren’t around, so didn’t know about something that hasn’t been invented.
I do agree as part of the solution with the guy in the rant video would be to raise the floor to 1000 agl with IFR approach corridors protected. Then raise ceiling to UAS to 900 feet. This gives 100’ separation from full scale, since they think that LOS pilots can tell the difference between 400’ ceiling and full scale floor at 500!! How insane!
But, back to looking forward. First, I don’t fly, but do own them, all sitting on the shelf with bad batteries and dust on them. The technology is amazing and how a group of drones can perform designs in 3d space. Travel from point A to B. with collision avoidance. Kill people. As one guy said that off the shelf stuff is being used by enemies of the USA and allies. In the future, if you understand the IFR navigational system, I can truly see a low altitude transportation navigational system for autonomous vehicles carrying anything and everything from city to city. There would be arrival and departure corridors in and out of cities, usually over the main highways or railroad track for noise abatement. Then once to a certain point in the arrival, then they could break off and navigate to and from the destination.
Otherwise, I am becoming a P:s3d off old man seeing the government taking more and more freedoms away by creating rules and regulations to create unrepresented taxes for government in the way of tickets and fines. They’re pi33ing on my fun. All I want to do is fly my jets with a 2500’ dome around the rc field.
Take care! Dan
I do agree as part of the solution with the guy in the rant video would be to raise the floor to 1000 agl with IFR approach corridors protected. Then raise ceiling to UAS to 900 feet. This gives 100’ separation from full scale, since they think that LOS pilots can tell the difference between 400’ ceiling and full scale floor at 500!! How insane!
But, back to looking forward. First, I don’t fly, but do own them, all sitting on the shelf with bad batteries and dust on them. The technology is amazing and how a group of drones can perform designs in 3d space. Travel from point A to B. with collision avoidance. Kill people. As one guy said that off the shelf stuff is being used by enemies of the USA and allies. In the future, if you understand the IFR navigational system, I can truly see a low altitude transportation navigational system for autonomous vehicles carrying anything and everything from city to city. There would be arrival and departure corridors in and out of cities, usually over the main highways or railroad track for noise abatement. Then once to a certain point in the arrival, then they could break off and navigate to and from the destination.
Otherwise, I am becoming a P:s3d off old man seeing the government taking more and more freedoms away by creating rules and regulations to create unrepresented taxes for government in the way of tickets and fines. They’re pi33ing on my fun. All I want to do is fly my jets with a 2500’ dome around the rc field.
Take care! Dan
01-04-2020, 10:38 PM
#43
I have been an RC junky for years, flying helicopters first, then airplanes, and now turbine jets. I am unique in a way that my job in law enforcement has given me the opportunity to fly a law enforcement helicopter, the real deal not a toy in the SF Bay Area. Flying the real helicopter and then unexpectedly coming across a fool flying a DJI drone is not fun or funny. I think the FAA is going the correct route and something that must be done in order to save lives. In my honest opinion I think an easy fix is to prohibite RC aircraft with auto pilot capabilities. The majority of idiots that fly DJI drones, or other brand drones, do not know how to fly without the use of autopilot or auto stabilization. Removing that piece of technology will roll us back to the era before DJI came around and we all know back then this was not an issue with the FAA.
I think because drones are so easy to fly for anyone that has absolutely no knowledge or experience of flying RC, they should all have to take a test and back ground investigation like buying a fire arm and have a 10 day waiting period to take delivery. Fire arms are dangerous in the wrong hands as well as drones are just as dangerous. Maybe people should have to take a class on drone safety, regulations and get certified before buying a drone, just like taking a gun safety or hunters safety course. If a person goes out and buys a RC plane or helicopter with no knowledge of flying, or has flying skills, that plane or heli will be very short lived as some have already experienced. Why doesn't the FAA take on the Drone manufacturers and make a law restricting the capabilities of what a drone can do? I'm sure the FAA is just going after the AMA model clubs and members because we are organized, easy prey and play by the rules. Going after us is like shooting fish in a barrel knowing the AMA, AMA members will lay down and comply!!
01-05-2020, 07:56 AM
#44
The crazy thing is that the News crews are all reporting Drone issues, like drones stopping the water dropping planes over our wild fire areas or drones flying into full scale air space, but yet its the news crews that are just as guilty using drones now for all news coverage. TV stations are actually advertising their New drone coverage, come see what we video!! They seem to think they are above the law and can fly their drones like they are flying the news helicopters whenever and where ever they want. It is these News crews fools that are also contributing to flying where they don't belong and reporting some other idiot is flying into the wrong airspace when it is actually their own drone violating.
I think because drones are so easy to fly for anyone that has absolutely no knowledge or experience of flying RC, they should all have to take a test and back ground investigation like buying a fire arm and have a 10 day waiting period to take delivery. Fire arms are dangerous in the wrong hands as well as drones are just as dangerous. Maybe people should have to take a class on drone safety, regulations and get certified before buying a drone, just like taking a gun safety or hunters safety course. If a person goes out and buys a RC plane or helicopter with no knowledge of flying, or has flying skills, that plane or heli will be very short lived as some have already experienced. Why doesn't the FAA take on the Drone manufacturers and make a law restricting the capabilities of what a drone can do? I'm sure the FAA is just going after the AMA model clubs and members because we are organized, easy prey and play by the rules. Going after us is like shooting fish in a barrel knowing the AMA, AMA members will lay down and comply!!
I think because drones are so easy to fly for anyone that has absolutely no knowledge or experience of flying RC, they should all have to take a test and back ground investigation like buying a fire arm and have a 10 day waiting period to take delivery. Fire arms are dangerous in the wrong hands as well as drones are just as dangerous. Maybe people should have to take a class on drone safety, regulations and get certified before buying a drone, just like taking a gun safety or hunters safety course. If a person goes out and buys a RC plane or helicopter with no knowledge of flying, or has flying skills, that plane or heli will be very short lived as some have already experienced. Why doesn't the FAA take on the Drone manufacturers and make a law restricting the capabilities of what a drone can do? I'm sure the FAA is just going after the AMA model clubs and members because we are organized, easy prey and play by the rules. Going after us is like shooting fish in a barrel knowing the AMA, AMA members will lay down and comply!!
Bob
01-05-2020, 08:12 AM
#45
Join them?
There is also a lot of money that can be made with the drones too. I have two buddies(jet students) that have gone into business under Part 107. They advertise in the Manufacturer Blue Book where business advertise their services to other businesses. They aren’t even working on it very often, since they are both retired and don’t need the money. They shoot advertising videos for builders, condo association, restaurants, etc. And they have one doing something for a city and the intercostal canals. All of these jobs are $10,000-$15,000 contract for a couple days of work the months the get a job. Yes, they both have expensive drones for the job, but they were paid for on their first job. When I hear of the money that they are making, I almost want to help.
The old saying, “If you can’t beat them, join them!”
I’m still a pi33ed off old man that wants my jet flying space left alone.
The old saying, “If you can’t beat them, join them!”
I’m still a pi33ed off old man that wants my jet flying space left alone.
01-05-2020, 01:32 PM
#47
There is also a lot of money that can be made with the drones too. I have two buddies(jet students) that have gone into business under Part 107. They advertise in the Manufacturer Blue Book where business advertise their services to other businesses. They aren’t even working on it very often, since they are both retired and don’t need the money. They shoot advertising videos for builders, condo association, restaurants, etc. And they have one doing something for a city and the intercostal canals. All of these jobs are $10,000-$15,000 contract for a couple days of work the months the get a job. Yes, they both have expensive drones for the job, but they were paid for on their first job. When I hear of the money that they are making, I almost want to help.
The old saying, “If you can’t beat them, join them!”
I’m still a pi33ed off old man that wants my jet flying space left alone.
The old saying, “If you can’t beat them, join them!”
I’m still a pi33ed off old man that wants my jet flying space left alone.
I'm with you Dan! We just have to keep pushing until things are worked out. In my opinion, the altitude thing is the real show stopper, and it looks like the AMA has broken the log jam on that - although its going to take awhile for it to all settle out. I think we'll see the same thing here...
Bob
01-05-2020, 07:28 PM
#48
Bob;
Since you’re involved in some of the meetings, I think that you guys, those making decisions, really need to put up more of an objection to no more FRIA when Clubs loose the flying field. Over the years, I have belonged to several Clubs that have lost the flying field. Besides the altitude issues, I hope that the group doesn’t rollover and let the FAA pass that rule on recreational flying. Those are two major issues.
Since you’re involved in some of the meetings, I think that you guys, those making decisions, really need to put up more of an objection to no more FRIA when Clubs loose the flying field. Over the years, I have belonged to several Clubs that have lost the flying field. Besides the altitude issues, I hope that the group doesn’t rollover and let the FAA pass that rule on recreational flying. Those are two major issues.
01-06-2020, 10:14 AM
#50
Bob;
Since you’re involved in some of the meetings, I think that you guys, those making decisions, really need to put up more of an objection to no more FRIA when Clubs loose the flying field. Over the years, I have belonged to several Clubs that have lost the flying field. Besides the altitude issues, I hope that the group doesn’t rollover and let the FAA pass that rule on recreational flying. Those are two major issues.
Since you’re involved in some of the meetings, I think that you guys, those making decisions, really need to put up more of an objection to no more FRIA when Clubs loose the flying field. Over the years, I have belonged to several Clubs that have lost the flying field. Besides the altitude issues, I hope that the group doesn’t rollover and let the FAA pass that rule on recreational flying. Those are two major issues.
We (the AMA SIG groups and Chad) have another web meeting on this topic coming up. We are all in agreement that we need to keep the FRIA process alive for CBO fields and CBO events and will reiterate that position. We need ALL members to comment on this for the NPRM - either using the AMA template, or your own words.
The goal of this rule is to be able to identify aircraft (sUAS or models) flying in the air. If you see one and there is an AMA field or AMA sanctioned event in the area, its pretty easy to discover where it came from and who's operating it...
Bob