BV's letters to AMA and FAA
 

Hey all, if we want to save our hobby, we all should follow Bob's direction in our comments to FAA and make AMA to follow as well. You can see the letters at BVM web site.

Behzad

Here is the link.
http://www.bvmjets.com/Safety/AMA0714-1.pdf

BTW well said Bob!!

Just because some device can dart around in the air does not make it a model aircraft. The AMA has totally lost it's way.

But keep in mind, only free cell phones and healthcare are rights. Not the freedom to fly model airplanes.

Bravo Bob! These FPV morons are a huge danger to the hobby! If the FAA were to kill model aviation, these idiots would simply move on to another idiotic activity and those of us who have participated in this hobby for a lifetime would simply be screwed.

Bob Klenke

Thank you Bob V!

Very well written. It seems like the AMA bathroom reading material is all about FPV nowadays. Maybe it is time to separate the two. The idea of being able to do FPV is enticing, I even bought a set up a while back. But not at the heightened risk of jeopardizing the whole hobby.

I hope Bob posts the reply he gets from the AMA. Could we as modelers force the AMA's hand and ask the FAA to make the distinction between the two?

i think AMA has embraced autonomous Control and FPV because of the money involved. Sales and advertising dollars are explosive right now in the industry. AMA is a large recipient of those advertising dollars. It is very obvious now days anytime one reads the monthly AMA magazine. Hobby shops and Hobby distributors are fueling the fire by stocking and introducing the latest FPV vehicle every week. Can't blame them, they are selling faster than any other flying platform out there right now. Certainly faster than turbine powered planes or .40 size glow engined trainers. AMA's hope is the more people involved and the platforms bought perhaps the more the the membership might grow. Only problem with this line of thinking is that those of us already members of the AMA will generally police ourselves and try not to do stupid stuff. The average fellow buying FPV could careless about AMA or keeping a flying field or FAA interference. All he is thinking about is "This is cool. its got a camera, I can use it to look over my neighbors swimming pool or fly it beside his house down the street and check out his daughter thru the window."

There are many legitament users of FPV technology but by promoting the selling of these platforms to the masses abuse and dangerous events will and have already occured. We are slowly drawing the noose around our own necks.

i agree, money talks, but ask any of the current AMA members (who pay the salary of the AMA's leadership) if they want these FPV goof-balls (mostly with multirotors, BTW) brought into the fold, and the answer will be NO!

The AMA needs to protect MODEL AVIATION, not pseudo-UAVs. Let those folks form their own CBO with their own rules, get it past the FAA, and ENFORCE them, and maybe then we could join forces. Until then, we should distance ourselves from them...

Bob

Just FYI. There are plenty of people calling rc jet guys "morons" flying missles through the sky, threatening our hobby etc.

We need to just band together and stop any and all goverment regulation. Even if it has a valid point, once they can stop one thing they can stop it all.

As it was said the public does not distinguish between a jet, foamie or tru drone. The same way the public does not distinguish between a handgun, assault rifle, or hunting rifle. You are asking way to much for them to see the difference. We can learn alot of from all the gun regulation that has been attempted recently, and mostly failed.

A big part of the issue falls in the fact that for every one AMA or MAAC member that flies FPV, there are 100 who have never even heard of AMA or MAAC and have bought their FPV crap at some local hobby store. Gone are the days that you buy an RC airplane and the hobby store gives you a brochure for the local clubs, and the AMA or MAAC. I remember buying kits years ago, in every box there was a brochure for AMA (which was a little off since I'm in Canada) but the hobby store would also give you a brochure for the local club, and in our case, MAAC. Instruction books discussed clubs and AMA as well.
While AMA may be to lax in it's rules, the sad fact is, it's not the members that follow the rules that will cause our problems. I've said for a decade now that park flying will be detrimental, and FPV is just the next move for park fliers. FPV is now being flown in the flight path of full scales, used as an invasion of privacy, truth of the matter is, there are already laws in place that should shut down those flying FPV beyond line of sight, but it's not enforced anywhere because nobody can catch these guys.
What is the solution? I have no idea, now that the stuff is so prevalent on the market it's not like we can just get rid of it, but sadly, these are the issues that are going to damage if not destroy this hobby. I have no idea how we begin to regulate the people flying outside of our national organizations and today, they far outnumber those that are members and flying within the rules.

Good point. I do think there is merit in trying to distinguish ourselves from the FPV crowd, just not sure of the best way to do it. The gun analogy is unfortunately right on. How can we let the FAA and general public see that the two activities are distinctly different? How ironic is it that our governing body is making things worse? This is like the NRA supporting gun bans!

A few months ago tehy kicked me out of a FB page about architectural landmarks. These morons were flying and filing using FPVs within one mile of a very busy airport, at 500' or more, right ON a VFR departure area. You could hear the airplanes passing by.

Remind me again, how are these morons in the same boat as us?

+1

Bob's letter was IS spot on!
Well done sir!

That is why I said if the FAA was smart they would try to steer flyers toward flying at rc sites and leave people at rc sites alone if they are not conflicting with full scale.

I have no doubt that the FPV guys that fly rouge are a problem and some of them need to be stopped, That being said I see nothings wrong with FPV flying if done
within the confines of a RC flying site or on your on property where there is no danger to anyone else.

In my opinion, which aligns with BV's (on this issue...), the only way yo distinguish between "traditional" RC flying and FPV, is to dis-allow FPV under AMA rules - which is effectively what the recent FAA "interpretation" has done anyway. I know that will cause some people to leave AMA, but those numbers will be REALLY small. I have yet to see anyone flying FPV at my AMA field or any of the others that I have flown at...

Bob

BV eloquently stated my position as well, except that loking through goggles shouldn't be a big deal IF it's within line of sight and at the traditionally approved field areas, perhaps even with a spotter so that WHEN the aircraft crashes, it's assured of hurting noone.

BTW, I've got FPV equipment as well and still intend to do some wildlife observation with it, but line of sight and in a very remote area - so I'm not ignorant of this portion. In fact, I learned a great deal about antennae and signal theory just because of it. But, I'm decidedly not for flying in any areas not meeting our traditional definition of safe flying sights and certainly not out of line of sight or over populated areas.

To me, it looks like it's playing out CLOSE to right, but for the commercial exception and 5 mile rule. Once the Federal Register comments close tommorrow, that's it folks. Done deal when they publish resonses and the final rule, probably in 6 months if their like other fed agencies.

I couldn't agree more with BV's position.

Just because a new technology hits the market it doesn't mean we have to embrace it. As a full scale pilot I once had an inflight incident with a model airplane. Imagine what the National Airspace System will look like with a bunch of WalMart drones or whatever you want to call them filling up our skies.

Unfortunately not only will these "drones" cause us to lose some of our privileges, but give it enough time and there will certainly be a human cost to these activities as well. It's only a matter of time !

It's funny that we're having this conversation because another conversation we have all the time is people seem to think we need to keep increasing our numbers and growing and growing and growing. And when they say that it's because, duh, "Growth is the goodz!!!!"

So we promote what... a bunch of toy junk that anyone can walk into a store buy, charge and attempt to fly. While we might get some good life-long modelers from this, mostly we get a lot more instant gratification, move along if it's too much work sort of riff-raff we'd be better off without.

And when I argue that we have everything we could possible want and without pushing for growth we'll still get more cool stuff.

We're promoting a hobby that requires no emotional investment, no real work, cheap foamies and other junk and what do we expect? We're going to get a lot of dedicated craftsman and people truly dedicated to the art of model aviation?

The almighty dollar is going to win this war, not the FAA, and not dedicated modelers.

+1 Spot on Bob http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsaWC5-eJ2E

I think the biggest issue is the new requirement that within 5 miles of an airport permission must be secured to fly RC. This is very different than the prior requirement of notification. Given our very litigious society, any airport owner/operator would be crazy to authorize this I think, as it would open them up to be sued should an accident happen. Lawyers would clearly try to go to where the money is and a case could be made that the accident would not have happened if the airport had not authorized the RC flying. I asked my company's general council that if hypothetically he were a general council for an airport and if he were asked to give council on whether the airport should agree to allow the RC flying, he said he would highly advise against it, as it would clearly open up the airport for litigation should accidents occur. Whether it's right or wrong is not the issue...you can sue anyone for anything in today's society. This IMHO will have the biggest impact to our hobby from these new rules....think about how many of your clubs are within 5 miles of ANY airport and that you are now required to get permission from them to fly.

Just my humble opinion.

Wes

While I normally try to stay neutral on any threads posted here, I have to come out on this one. Good job Bob. Your letter is right on the mark and points out issues that needed to be said aloud as this issue plays out. Thank you for taking the time to submit the letter to the AMA.

Ken

I hate the word drone. Drone was used long ago. I have people at work asking me if fly drones since I fly model airplanes. The media loves to use the word drone as it makes them money with viewers.

Rules no matter what they are, are only as good as those that follow them. I want the freedom to be able to fly a plane with a camera on it out in the "country" away from the cities and airports if I want to. These people flying these planes (FPV) over cities, down streets, chasing people and all are the ones that need to be fined and very big fines. Dont punish the masses as we fly with in the rules, punish the ones that doing stupid stuff.