AMA is overreaching!

[steven yampolsky]

Sooo,

I've read the FAA proposal and here's the lowdown:

1) The document explicitly states that FAA is not going to create or enforce rules for model aircraft that is flown for hobby/recreational use. In other words, if this is not commercial flight, FAA WILL NOT regulate the use of model aircraft. Commercial flight is basically any time a person is PAID to fly model airplanes.
2) FAA is endorsing AMA and AMA-like organizations by stating that it WILL NOT regulate "aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-
based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization". In other words, if you are an AMA member and follow its safety guidelines, FAA is not going to regulate your freedom to fly model airplanes. IT DOES mean that if you are a schmuck with a $2000 multi-rotor that's too cheap to join AMA and learn about flight safety, FAA has the authority over your flying.
3) The new document re-states the super-wide definition of model aircraft. It DOES NOT limit the size or weight of the aircraft. it DOES require that the aircraft be operated in non-commercial manner(hobby/recreational use) and that it should always be within the line of sight of the pilot. Basically, one can't fly RC by use of onboard cameras. At that point, it becomes an UAV

[john e. holliday]

I have posted my comments on another thread.    If you don't have an AMA license and fly at a controlled RC field you are on your own.   Now how do we get hobby shops and dealers to tell this to the new person that has not been told about the AMA?

[steve bittner]

I have read the FAA document and totally support it as written. I fly RC and free flight also and find there statements to be realistic for every bodys safety and just plain good common sense. Future commercial users will be restricted or regulated by the FAA as it should be. Lets not try to second guess the future to much.

[steven yampolsky]

Lets not try to second guess the future to much.

Point well taken. I've removed the "guessing" portion of my post.

[Eric Viglione]

OK, I've bought from B&H as one of the more reputable photo suppliers for many many years...

So, now these FPV are showing up there, considered as pro camera equipment. Interesting, no?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1044729-REG/dji_phantom_2_vision_plus.html

The thing I think some clubs are worried about, is that some DO HAVE professional pilots that get paid to fly and pimp/demo equipment. Many club fields are within the 5 mile limit of an airport, and filing a flight plan subject to the ATC approval could be not only a pain, but daunting.

If you are of the mind that the erosion of rights start with small steps, then it might bother you.

This AMA alert was brought up at our RC club meeting just this sunday, people were encouraged to respond.

Here is a story related at our club meeting when they were asking what other commercial uses for drones were coming -

A friend and customer of our club president out fishing off the coast of Sarasota recently, has a nice day out on the boat. Puts a few fish in the cooler. He has a few coolers on the boat, one had food, ice, and one cooler he put the fish into. While he's fishing he notices a buzzing sound... and notices a small "thing" in the air flying, but never got a good look at it. Gets back to the dock and Fish & Wildlife are waiting for him, wanting to look in his cooler. Not just any cooler, the specific cooler they pointed to that had his catch in it. When he tried to balk at their request, they produced a picture of him on their tablet of him standing on his deck putting the fish into that cooler.

At first I thought, ok, that's almost too good, is this a "fish tail" ? So... I went home and did some digging on the internet. Oh dear... I was really hoping it was just a tall tale...bummer.

http://www.sportfishingmag.com/blogs/hook/eye-sky

So... maybe being forced to file a flight plan could be a good thing, if they are published in real time. Oh look, Fish and Wildlife filed a flight plan to fly over siesta key, lets not go there, heh heh.

Just think of all the ways people will come up with to exploit this junk... How about speed traps? Cheaper than a full scale hellicopter to keep in the air! How about civilian Private investigators chasing people around in their back yards trying to void a disability claim? Stake outs? Eddie Murphy would have to make a new movie of him stitting in a van somewhere looking at an FPV. Maybe FPV babysitters... who needs to walk their kids to school, just send the FPV along... hey wait! Maybe I could a tie a leash to one and use it to walk my dog?

Sheesh... my head hurts. Stop the planet, I wanna get off!
EricV

[John Stiles]

I'm not gonna worry too much about it...if FAA wants to come aboard my private property and regulate my "LINE/Controlled" model airplanes, let them come! I ain't no terrorist!

[Tim Wescott]

1) The document explicitly states that FAA is not going to create or enforce rules for model aircraft that is flown for hobby/recreational use. In other words, if this is not commercial flight, FAA WILL NOT regulate the use of model aircraft. Commercial flight is basically any time a person is PAID to fly model airplanes.

Actually, in the last section of the document, where they expand on how they're going to take authority based on the NAS safety clause, they do, quite explicitly, create a rule for model aircraft flight operations, and say how it's going to be enforced.

[Steve Helmick]

It's pretty difficult to fly a model airplane around here and be more than 5 miles away from some sort of airport. In our case, we actually fly AT an airport. I am more concerned about the Auburn City Council not wanting to get crosswise with the FAA and throwing us out. Howard is down there about every evening, trimming and practising.

If we lost that site, it would be back to Smokey Point (aka "Arlington") for Howard. OOOOPS, it's adjacent to the Arlington Airport, under administration of the airport board, but ultimately, the City Council. Next option is Shelton. Quite a drive for Howard...and also on the Municipal Airport....   Steve

[Juan Valentin]

 I totally agree with the FAA, I think that the AMA should not be involved on this one.Let the manufacturers and sellers of those toys deal with the FAA.
                                                                                                                                                           Juan

[ChrisSarnowski]

Steve,

Can't really agree with you.

Paid flying of a model aircraft to do aerial surveys of crops, real estate, etc. is worth regulating. I don't see how paid flying of a model aircraft at say King Orange or Joe Nall is worthy of the same regulation. And yet the FAA attempting to regulate all of that.

The AMA has provided community based guidelines for operating first-person-view aircraft such that the pilot can use the goggles and a spotter watches the plane. The FAA is trying to deny the pilot the opportunity to operate the model aircraft using the first-person-view goggles. Since the community has provided guidelines, the FAA has over-reached in providing regulation.

That is my 2 cents.

-Chris

[Motorman]

And how does this effect my Ringmaster?

[Eric Viglione]

And how does this effect my Ringmaster?

I don't know about your Ringmaster, but since my C/L circle is provided to me by the extreme thoughtfullness of my R/C club, MY Ringmaster could be affected if my R/C club which is within 5 miles of an airport goes bust from over-regulation and I don't have anywhere left to fly it.

EricV

[Tim Wescott]

Paid flying of a model aircraft to do aerial surveys of crops, real estate, etc. is worth regulating. I don't see how paid flying of a model aircraft at say King Orange or Joe Nall is worthy of the same regulation. And yet the FAA attempting to regulate all of that.

The notice from the FAA is crafted so that if you get bored and stop reading in the middle then it looks like it's just about paid flying of model aircraft.

At the end, they spell out their plan for world domination, and it does cover just about any part of model flying that they want it to.

[steven yampolsky]

Paid flying of a model aircraft to do aerial surveys of crops, real estate, etc. is worth regulating. I don't see how paid flying of a model aircraft at say King Orange or Joe Nall is worthy of the same regulation. And yet the FAA attempting to regulate all of that.

The government regulates a lot of commercial enterprises. While overbearing at times, government regulation has resulted in cleaner air and water as well as safer air travel. Commercial transportation is regulated more than private, be it auto, train or planes. Why should UAV's be any different?

As far as paid model airplane flying, there is a precedent already: airshow performers. Those folks perform aerobatics that an average pilot can't do in front of crowds. The FAA has a set of rule to ensure SAFE performance of extreme maneuvers. Why should 50% RC replica of Extra 300 flown by a pro pilot be treated any different from Mike Goulian and his full size Extra.

The AMA has provided community based guidelines for operating first-person-view aircraft such that the pilot can use the goggles and a spotter watches the plane. The FAA is trying to deny the pilot the opportunity to operate the model aircraft using the first-person-view goggles. Since the community has provided guidelines, the FAA has over-reached in providing regulation.

I have not read the AMA guidelines but from what you've written, I would side with FAA interpretation as well: whoever has the best situational awareness should be in charge of controlling the aircraft.

[Randy Powell]

I'm not so worried about the FAA per se. It's the over reaction of airports, city councils and such that worries me. I got banned from flying a local airport because some dipwad not associated with the local RC club or anyone else flew his plane at the airport and decided that buzzing private planes as they took off was a great idea. The airport manager kicked all model planes out. I talked to him and he said that he didn't care that my plane was tethered. It was a model plane, and so, was kicked out. He was afraid that others would see me fly and think that any model plane was OK. It was an obvious over-reaction, but there it is.

[steven yampolsky]

At the end, they spell out their plan for world domination, and it does cover just about any part of model flying that they want it to.

I assume, you refer to section titled "IV. Examples of Regulations That Apply to Model Aircraft". I have looked at it in detail and DO find rule interpretations listed there quiet reasonable.

The section refers to applying portions of part 91 regulations to model aircraft. Fact of the matter, this has ALWAYS been the case. AMA safety regs basically mirror the FAA ones. The portions of part 91 the document refers to deal with two things: figuring out the right of way and airspace usage. The first rule states that the more agile aircraft has to yield to a less maneuverable one. The second rule says that you can't fly your RC model on the final approach path to LaGuardia International Airport. NEITHER rule is overreaching or limiting our liberties. These are sensible interpretations.

[ChrisSarnowski]

The government regulates a lot of commercial enterprises. While overbearing at times, government regulation has resulted in cleaner air and water as well as safer air travel. Commercial transportation is regulated more than private, be it auto, train or planes. Why should UAV's be any different?

As far as paid model airplane flying, there is a precedent already: airshow performers. Those folks perform aerobatics that an average pilot can't do in front of crowds. The FAA has a set of rule to ensure SAFE performance of extreme maneuvers. Why should 50% RC replica of Extra 300 flown by a pro pilot be treated any different from Mike Goulian and his full size Extra.

I have not read the AMA guidelines but from what you've written, I would side with FAA interpretation as well: whoever has the best situational awareness should be in charge of controlling the aircraft.

As far as regulating commercial operation of model aircraft for aerial surveys goes, those aircraft are operated over areas not designated as model aircraft fields. Demonstration flights at an model aircraft field are performed in an area whose safety features have been set up with the specific use in mind. If you get hit by a baseball at Fenway Park, you have different expectations than if you get hit by a baseball when walking down the street.

For FPV goggle operation of UAV type models, yes I can agree with your comment. However the argument that the AMA is making is that they have already provided guidelines for operation. In that case, the FAA should not be making regulations since the guidelines exist. I think they are both arguing about who owns which loophole in the law.

-Chris

[John Stiles]

For anyone that loses their place to fly, because of a bunch of federal smoke....just come on down to my farm, and you can fly all you want...if the feds get through the barbed wire, and the dogs and horses don't croak'um...we'll hold them off with small arms fire till they pry the control handle from our cold dead hands!

[Hoss Cain]

Steve,

Can't really agree with you.

Paid flying of a model aircraft to do aerial surveys of crops, real estate, etc. is worth regulating. I don't see how paid flying of a model aircraft at say King Orange or Joe Nall is worthy of the same regulation. And yet the FAA attempting to regulate all of that.

The AMA has provided community based guidelines for operating first-person-view aircraft such that the pilot can use the goggles and a spotter watches the plane. The FAA is trying to deny the pilot the opportunity to operate the model aircraft using the first-person-view goggles. Since the community has provided guidelines, the FAA has over-reached in providing regulation.

That is my 2 cents.

-Chris

Can't really agree with you Chris.

Folks keep talking about, and AMA management keeps harping about being the CBO. Where is any official document that FAA has designated AMA so. I do not think that FAA has yet provided AMA with the legal document that assures AMA is the much taunted "Community Based Organization."
BTW AMA has not provided me with much real information these past several months. I will query them right after the holiday weekend.

[Randy Powell]

What, the AMA is not the Tsar of Model planes? Yet?

[Jim Thomerson]

I thought that congress had specifically barred the FAA from regulating model airplanes.  Am I confused on that?

[Brett Buck]

I thought that congress had specifically barred the FAA from regulating model airplanes.  Am I confused on that?

  The AMA's point is that the proposed regulation appears to violate that, or at least interpreting it in the broadest manner possible.  Whether its a good argument or not is a lawyer thing.

    I get why the AMA is concerned, and they may have a legal point. I object to the fact that they are screeching about regulation, while simultaneously promoting, aggressively, the sort of irresponsible behavior and lack of respect for the dangers that the FAA is trying to use as evidence in their favor. Just look at the cover of the latest MA - a giant scale ARF (replete with "Hangar 9" decal for good product placement) hovering 6" off the ground. Look inside, and the magazine is wall-to-wall advertisements for more "no responsibility" model airplane flying products.
   
    30 years ago, you would have to develop the skills and craft to build such a giant-scale model. Now any idiot can go buy on this afternoon, and fly it in the park, with absolutely no experience or even remote appreciation for the potential risks. I see these guys all the time, any time you hear or see a model flying, it's some yo-yo flying an RC ARF model in a dangerous spot. The AMA does very little to discourage this, the rules are in fine print while you have 100+ pages of full-color ads and articles acting as advertising.

    Brett

   

[Randy Powell]

Well, Brett, like a lot of things in the world these days, it's all about the money. As long as the cash is rolling in, no one seems to care about responsibility or outcomes.

[Rafael Gonzalez]

Very simple from reading the whole definitions and rules/proposals. A group of interested parties has acquired the AMA for the promotion and support for commercial use of R/C quad-copters, helicopters, etc. I take the liberty to guess that the larger majority of AMA members are not practicing commercial use of R/C equipment. And furthermore, most of the individuals are not involved with the AMA. So why is the AMA so adamant about FAA rules and interpretations in the use of commercial UAV? Another assumption:
There may be money already exchanged in sponsorships and grants. Amazon, USPS, FedEx, UPS, Tower Hobbies, etc. If AMA is given primary control by the FAA for commercial UAV's of a given size and weight, imagine the returns!

This is a prolog to the  exchanges between the AMA and the FAA to get the control of the money-making side of our "hobby"
I as an R/C and C/L enthusiast cannot speak for any other hobbyist. But I wonder what the percentage of us are interested in the commercial side of our "hobby". I put it in quotes because it seems it is not perceived as a hobby anymore.

Best,

Rafael

I have been assigned to moderate the R/C Stunt Hanger section in general. I've involved with the R/C side of our interest since 1974. I will post this in there also.

 

[John Rist]

Most of the dum-dums in the park are not AMA members! 

[55chevr]

All the quad copters are is an extension of video games.  I would venture a guess that just about all would be outlaw flyers. 

[John Stiles]

Most of the dum-dums in the park are not AMA members! 

Zackly right!

[Hoss Cain]

Very simple from reading the whole definitions and rules/proposals. A group of interested parties has acquired the AMA for the promotion and support for commercial use of R/C quad-copters, helicopters, etc. I take the liberty to guess that the larger majority of AMA members are not practicing commercial use of R/C equipment. And furthermore, most of the individuals are not involved with the AMA. So why is the AMA so adamant about FAA rules and interpretations in the use of commercial UAV? Another assumption:
There may be money already exchanged in sponsorships and grants. Amazon, USPS, FedEx, UPS, Tower Hobbies, etc. If AMA is given primary control by the FAA for commercial UAV's of a given size and weight, imagine the returns!

This is a prolog to the  exchanges between the AMA and the FAA to get the control of the money-making side of our "hobby"
I as an R/C and C/L enthusiast cannot speak for any other hobbyist. But I wonder what the percentage of us are interested in the commercial side of our "hobby". I put it in quotes because it seems it is not perceived as a hobby anymore.

Best,

Rafael

I have been assigned to moderate the R/C Stunt Hanger section in general. I've involved with the R/C side of our interest since 1974. I will post this in there also.

 

Mr. Rafael, in my somewhat learned opinion, I think YOU have it all nailed down to a "T".    I sincerely believe that the higher echelon of paid AMA staff has one thing in mind and that is to be total boss of the commercial use of  unmanned quad-copters and like machines. Such power could  very much produce a strong financial position.  Unfortunately, the current AMA Executive Counsel is more into playing "Ring Around The Roses" than getting down to reality within this strong possibility of just where the Staff could be going.
Yes, I am a candidate for AMA Executive Vice-President, yet with the rule of only 3 names on the ballot, my guess and history has happened this way, the current EC will be darn certain  my name will not be on the ballot which will be determined on this July 19th. The sitting DVPs and the current EVP will determine such. Any betters? 

[RC Storick]

Mr. Rafael, in my somewhat learned opinion, I think YOU have it all nailed down to a "T".    I sincerely believe that the higher echelon of paid AMA staff has one thing in mind and that is to be total boss of the commercial use of  unmanned quad-copters and like machines. Such power could  very much produce a strong financial position.  Unfortunately, the current AMA Executive Counsel is more into playing "Ring Around The Roses" than getting down to reality within this strong possibility of just where the Staff could be going.
Yes, I am a candidate for AMA Executive Vice-President, yet with the rule of only 3 names on the ballot, my guess and history has happened this way, the current EC will be darn certain  my name will not be on the ballot which will be determined on this July 19th. The sitting DVPs and the current EVP will determine such. Any betters? 

Hoss Cain for AMA President! 

[Hoss Cain]

Thanks Robert, but this year is only for Executive Vice President

Maybe you can ask your DVP to get me on that ballot.

Many Thanks for your support.

[RC Storick]

Thanks Robert, but this year is only for Executive Vice President

Maybe you can ask your DVP to get me on that ballot.

Many Thanks for your support.

I don't know what I can do but I will ask. Everyone who visits here needs to write your name in if its not there.We need more control line friendly reps.

[Roger Vizioli]

I don't know what I can do but I will ask. Everyone who visits here needs to write your name in if its not there.We need more control line friendly reps.

Have ballots been mailed and I missed it or are they still in process??

[Hoss Cain]

Have ballots been mailed and I missed it or are they still in process??

No Sir, you have not missed much so far.  In the late Spring for the annual elections, AMA announces the Executive Council members that are up for election that year. There is a period of nomination in which AMA members can nominate AMA members to the Council. A potential DVP candidate  has to be a Leader Member and reside in the District. To be eligible for Executive Vice President or President, one has to also have been a District Vice President or an - IIRC - an Associate VP, or other officer for at least one year..
The nominations from the membership closed this year on June 19th. A letter of acceptance had to be in AMA HQ by July 7th. On July 9th AMA has to have a Campaign Statement (for the magazine and the ballot) from the potential Candidate in AMA HQ, just in case that person does get nominated by the EC.   EDIT: I forgot to say that on July 19th, the sitting Ex. Council will decide the 3 or less nominated persons to be allowed on the each ballot for the 2014 election and serving starting Jan. 01, 2015.
As of now, bills and ballots will be mailed to the membership adult (Open) members, Sep 12 thru 16th of Sep.
Nov. 7th is the cutoff date for receiving ballots mailed to adult members.
Thanks for asking.

[Brett Buck]

Most of the dum-dums in the park are not AMA members!  

   Frequently true, however, if they were AMA members, they would see 100 pages of toy ARFs and quad-copters, and half a page of small print to suggest that, gee, it would be  a swell idea if you followed the safety code. Virtually no different than if they hadn't joined at all.

    This argument may not be winnable in any case. But I find it quite hypocritical for the AMA to complain about regulation while also promoting "anything goes" in every way possible and making only weak efforts to change it.

    This is the danger of having your organization driven by commercial and proprietary concerns.

 The AMA does a very good job in supporting competition, and I cannot find significant fault with it in that regard. Knowing some of the people involved, I am pretty sure they think they are doing the right thing. But when you are immersed in a situation, you sometimes can't see the problem.

   I am not at all convinced that it is as cynical or corrupt as Rafael suggests, but I can sure see why you might think so.

   Brett


p.s. I would add that this sort of regulatory action has been coming for a LONG time. I have been amazed at how few legal restrictions there are on mode airplane compared to, say, model rocketry/LMR/HPR. This despite very strong community policing of rocketry (at least until HPR came along, at which point it was significant reduced) and nearly nothing along those lines from the AMA by comparison. Model airplanes have a much worse safety record than rocketry.

[ChrisSarnowski]

Can't really agree with you Chris.

Folks keep talking about, and AMA management keeps harping about being the CBO. Where is any official document that FAA has designated AMA so. I do not think that FAA has yet provided AMA with the legal document that assures AMA is the much taunted "Community Based Organization."
BTW AMA has not provided me with much real information these past several months. I will query them right after the holiday weekend.

Well that is a very good point, Hoss. The AMA has decided that they are the CBO that can make the rules. However we don't see anything from the FAA that acknowledges that position.

-Chris

ps. Adding link regarding Memorandum of Understanding between AMA and FAA signed January 2014.

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2014/01/13/amafaa-sign-memorandum-of-understanding/

[Hoss Cain]

Well that is a very good point, Hoss. The AMA has decided that they are the CBO that can make the rules. However we don't see anything from the FAA that acknowledges that position.

-Chris

ps. Adding link regarding Memorandum of Understanding between AMA and FAA signed January 2014.

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2014/01/13/amafaa-sign-memorandum-of-understanding/

Good job there Chris. I just came on after listening to and reading that and some other stuff.  The "Understanding..." is, IMO, just that, as AMA calls it a "Memorandum of Understanding"  While the only mention of  "Community Based Organization" was made, it was only once by Rich Hanson and not by Williams or our AMA President. Rich Hanson has also stated, "The Academy of Model Aeronautics does not advocate, condone, or endorse the operation of unmanned aircraft systems and/or model aircraft outside the constraints of federal regulations or FAA Policy."  So what has happened to change that, or has it been changed?  Way back in the late '80s and early '90s I went to Phoenix for some years for War Bird Racing. Rich Hansen was a CD out there and I worked on him to become District Vice President. He did and soon became an AMA Employee. Now he doesn't seem to know me when I go to Muncie. How Things do change? 

[55chevr]

The  term comes to mind .... "convenient amnesia"

[pmackenzie]

I have read the FAA document and totally support it as written. I fly RC and free flight also and find there statements to be realistic for every bodys safety and just plain good common sense. Future commercial users will be restricted or regulated by the FAA as it should be. Lets not try to second guess the future to much.

Are you not a little worried that free flight models could be banned?
Unless they have DT on demand then it seems to me they are being operated beyond line of sight, or at least have the potential to do so.

Pat MacKenzie

[55chevr]

It appears to me that the chief FAA interest in quadcopters is flying in high population density areas.

[Steve Helmick]

My two Senators and my Congressman are all Liberals that don't give a rat's ass about my rights. Not much point in writing to them. One of them sent me an email about changing the immigration laws. I wrote back, suggesting that they ought to try enforcing the laws they already had. Guess what? Can't reply to that address! WTF!!!! TOTAL BULLSHIT!  Steve

[Sean McEntee]

Are you not a little worried that free flight models could be banned?

Models cannot be controled beyond LOS, and since FF aren't under influence of any control, there's no issue.

Unless they have DT on demand then it seems to me they are being operated beyond line of sight, or at least have the potential to do so.

Pat MacKenzie

Most competition FFers (to include me) are using these: http://mysite.verizon.net/resrqa3z/airtek/id65.html

Probably the best investment I've made in my modeling career

[pmackenzie]

The problem is that they have defined a model as one that is controlled from the ground using LOS.
So it is easy to say that one that has no such control might no longer allowed to be operated.

[Paul Smith]

Considering the US Federal government's record of enforcement vis a vis narcotics, illegal aliens, and IRS employees, modelers have little to fear.

[peabody]

The public perceives ALL model airplane activity as similar/identical.....
Tell someone that you know as an acquaintance that you fly/compete with control line model airplanes and you'll more than likely be greeted with "like those helicopters?"
Law enforcers generally view our activities in the same vein as park fliers....

The TV piece the other night said, alarmed, that there may be as many as 70,000 of the new "drones" (quads) sold this year.....a figure off by about 90% I would bet. They perceive all of these as camera carrying, privacy intruding, potential weapons carrying pieces......

I am of the belief that our AMA should not insure/condone ANY commercial model flying

[John Stiles]

there may be as many as 70,000 of the new "drones" (quads) sold this year.....a figure off by about 90% I would bet. They perceive all of these as camera carrying, privacy intruding, potential weapons carrying pieces......

I am of the belief that our AMA should not insure/condone ANY commercial model flying

Around here we have a shortage of flying objects to take target practice on.....sometimes you can sit outside with a shotgun for months at a time and never see something to shoot at.

[Bud Morrison]

And guys like these really help the cause.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/08/drone-came-within-800-feet-chopper-nypd-says/?intcmp=latestnews

[Scott Richlen]

And, by the way, a Community Based Organization, is another phony construct that allows government politicians to play footsy with their cronies (as in Acorn) while pretending to be engaged in a democratic process.  A Community Based Organization is just another label for Special Interest Group and their "special interests" may or may not be representative of the people.  In fact, they may be working against the laws and culture of this nation.  When was the election held that placed them in power?

Scott

[Joe Just]

Once again, the Bolsheviks are in power in WA,DC. No doubt about it as their actions mirror what happened in Russia in the late 19's.  We have been taken over by the extreme left!
Joe

[FLOYD CARTER]

How about moving this thread to the "Debate Zone", where you can safely rant against Obama, the guvvies, and whomever you choose.  This has become a politically-polarized topic for extreme views, both far right and far left.

F.C.

[Steve Helmick]

Maybe (?) I can redirect the hatred and show a valid use for one of those Quadrotors (with camera). This video was shot in Argentina, apparently at their biggest FF contest. A $$$ F1C got lost over the mountain range downwind, and later in the video, it shows the rescue mission. Looks like very challenging terrain, and OBTW, resembles Lost Hills and Taft in a lot of ways. Technology isn't all bad, I guess...    Steve

Edit: The actual rescue starts at about 3:20 into the video...but you really ought watch it all...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u08ECavkhPE&feature=youtu.be

[john e. holliday]

Like TV, computors and some other stuff, they can be used for good.

[CircuitFlyer]

I'm a little confused:

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
Subtitle B—Unmanned Aircraft Systems

SEC. 331. DEFINITIONS
( UNMANNED AIRCRAFT.—The term ‘‘unmanned aircraft’’ means an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT
(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is—(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

Taken literally, this looks like is a control line aircraft is a manned aircraft, not a model aircraft.

Paul

[Curare]

No, as you're not 'within or on the aircraft'. I.e. sitting in it, or ON it.

I can only think of one or two aircraft you sit ON to fly, but hey the rules are the rules.

Also that also defines any model aircraft that is flown out of line of sight as an unmanned aircraft.

If you're doing FPV, and you don't have a spotter who can see the model, you're an unregistered UAV/UAS pilot.

[Brett Buck]

I'm a little confused:

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
Subtitle B—Unmanned Aircraft Systems

SEC. 331. DEFINITIONS
( UNMANNED AIRCRAFT.—The term ‘‘unmanned aircraft’’ means an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT
(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is—(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

Taken literally, this looks like is a control line aircraft is a manned aircraft, not a model aircraft.

   The FAA does not consider it an aircraft at all, since it is always connected to the ground.

    Brett

[Juan Valentin]

                    People are starting to get in trouble with this drones by flying them everywhere without thinking the consequences. The manufacturers should include warnings about where to operate this things. Here is a link to an article in the news that I found:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/11/drones-arrests_n_5575371.html

                                                                                                                                      Juan

[Curare]

Why is it up to the manufacturers to stop stupid people doing stupid things?

[Scott Richlen]

I suppose because stupid people buy their products and when stupid people do stupid things, the manufacturers are often sued.  So, to protect themselves, they better figure out how to keep stupid people from doing stupid things with their products.

Remember that the difference between stupid and dumb is the ethical/moral deficit.  Dumb people may just be "slow" or have a low IQ.  Stupid people have a lack of morals or ethical understanding.  I suppose that a dumb person could actually be considered "wise", but never so a stupid person.

Scott

[john e. holliday]

Too many people with absolutely no common sense.   Just look at who is sitting in the houses of justice.  maybe the following pic will answer it.

[Hoss Cain]

Too many people with absolutely no common sense.   Just look at who is sitting in the houses of justice.  maybe the following pic will answer it.

Thanks much for that posting, Mr. Holiday.  Great one!

[Hoss Cain]

I suppose because stupid people buy their products and when stupid people do stupid things, the manufacturers are often sued.  So, to protect themselves, they better figure out how to keep stupid people from doing stupid things with their products.

Remember that the difference between stupid and dumb is the ethical/moral deficit.  Dumb people may just be "slow" or have a low IQ.  Stupid people have a lack of morals or ethical understanding.  I suppose that a dumb person could actually be considered "wise", but never so a stupid person.

Scott

Good post, Mr. Richlen:
There are numerous conflicts in some other sources. There are many folks (AMA) that are really upset about the fact that the FAA is wanting RCers to alert the area  Air Traffic Control (ATC) folks when the RCers are flying within 5 miles of an airport. As a 41 year veteran of military and airline flying, I think the ATC has every right to be informed, so I am not popular there as a candidate for AMA Executive Vice President. 
While a toy-like quadcopter around the back-yard is family-fun, sending a big drone out where it cannot be seen by the pilot, well that is a whole 'nother ballgame. I have witnessed the sending of a drone into clouds and waiting for them to return, said area being in a place where  airliners are turning IFR  into a final approach at around 5-6000 ft. MSL.  Scary!

[Scott Richlen]

I really don't like the idea of the government getting involved in model airplane flying, but we seem to have a lot of people these days that don't understand the difference between having the freedom to do something, and the responsibility to not exercise that freedom because it may cause harm to others.  We seem to have a substantial number of people who apparently don't like to be told "no", but need to be told "no". It is a shame that the situation has been created that allows the government wider authority in our model airplane world, but it indicates how some have not exercised self-restraint and damaged the rights of all of the rest of us.  I want minimalist government, but if I am the passenger in that jetliner on approach....

Scott

[John Stiles]

deleted[too political,even for me]

[George Hostler]

I think there are already enough laws on the books, that simply need enforcement. A few of these violators get their chops busted, and the rest fall in line. Instead, I have seen a trend over the past 40 years, of punishing the innocent as a way of creating enforcement.

I stop, after all, this is a recreational model aircraft forum and come here to relax and enjoy the hobby. I know this is an important topic that others wish to make aware, I appreciate the opinions of others. Yet life is so short that I've decided to pick and choose my battles, and this is not one of them, IYKWIM.