Actually, quad copter racing is about the only RC event, besides a bit of sport flying that I'd consider trying. Met a couple of younger guys locally and watched them do it, and some video. Doing it FPV looks like fun. Rather difficult, requires precision flying, close quarters stuff, not too many rules, and a clear winner(s), and not too expensive.
Don't misunderstand the other comments - I don't think anyone begrudges the responsible use or users of drones/quadcopters. It's much like R/C - there is a percentage of RC guys that compete, develop, do model aviation just like we do. There is some fraction of RC sport fliers who still operate that way, too. They are competent, knowledgeable and responsible. But the vast majority are RC "consumers" - buy one ARF or RTF trainer after another, crash it, move on to something else pretty quickly. They are almost uniformly ignorant and irresponsible, and know nothing about model aviation and have no commitment at all. Some of them join AMA because they have to in order to fly at a club field (that the first group developed and operate), but they see the AMA as a source of consumer advertising, and ignore the separate section at the back about all these stodgy old fat men talking about bylaws, etc.
Same thing with drone people, except that they don't have to bother with AMA, they buy the thing, charge it up, and go to the back yard or the park, and start crashing it into things. Maybe they get pretty good at it, and with the vast automation, start getting "neat shots" with them, like at airports, Kim Kardashian's wedding (or divorce, or whatever ignorant and immoral bullshit they are doing this week). Of course they get caught somehow, hence the almost daily "drone crashes into white house" stories.
This latter group *is going to cause regulation*, period, end of discussion. People HATE them, they are despised by the general public. That was never going to be avoided, and it was perfectly clear that it was not going to be avoided long ago. It is a metaphysical certitude, and cannot be averted.
How can the first group - which is not a problem - be separated from the second when
the AMA is going out of it's way to blur the lines of distinction? If you draw a distinction, you can use the historic carve-outs for model aviation to insulate the people who are not the cause of the issue from the second, which is going to get regulated no matter what. That is the correct path to take - make clear distinctions between the responsible AMA-policed activity, and the buy-and-fly rogues. Use the existing laws to make sure the AMA is the "community-based organization" mentioned in the special rule for model aircraft, they embrace the responsible operators, the AMA remains the 800-lb gorilla and the gatekeepers (which they have defended with 6+ years of legal wrangling in the past). Works for AMA, they might double the membership, reduce the insurance risk pool, we get protected at the same time.
But what they appear to have decided to do is call them all the one thing, and make no distinction whatsoever. That puts us all in the same boat with the buy-and-fly idiots, and subject to the same draconian regulation that is certain to happen. Of course, they will regulate that there must be "geofencing" and other items that cannot be implemented in conventional aircraft, because no one including the AMA is even willing to ask about FF and CL. That was blatantly clear when I asked about it, they didn't want to start trying to make a distinction between various types of models because it would "confuse the issue". So, eveyone/anyone tell me, what make and version of geofencing firmware is used to keep your Twister from straying into the path of Air Force One? What do you mean, you don't use geofencing firmware, that's a legal requirement? Oops, accidental end of FF and CL, but boy howdy, you can get a drone down at Wal-Mart for $75.
I would also remind everyone that NOTHING, repeat, NOTHING in any FAA document, "guidelines for law enforcement", anything, mentions or exempts CL and FF from any of this. The AMA asserts that it was not the intent of the rule to regulate CL, but that assertion is apparently backed by absolutely nothing (as the AMA admits) in any legal document. If local law enforcement gets a complaint, they will pull out the "FAA guide to drone regulation for law enforcement", it's more than 5.5 ounces and it goes into they air," you are finished and all the appeals along the lines of "the AMA says that wasn't the intent" will be worth exactly jack @#$%. In fact it also mentions that "tethered drones" (which actually means quadcopters with trailing wires instead of radio) are not exempted. Of course, that means that all your protestations that you are tied to the surface of a sphere does't help you.
That's why it is a mortal threat to model aviation, and why the AMA's tack on this is so fundamentally flawed. At best, they are going to try to get RC airplanes a break, but don't wait around for or expect that they will make any other distinctions or even care whether or not CL dies due to unachievable requirements due to a misunderstanding.
Brett
Topic: GREAT issue of model aviation (doesn't deserve upper case) (Read 7455 times)