News:




  • December 09, 2018, 05:58:25 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Here we go again  (Read 10586 times)

Offline Vincent Judd

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 225
Here we go again
« on: April 15, 2018, 06:03:02 PM »
FWIW, apparently the FAA has teed it up and is coming after model aviation again.

Our club president just sent us this message that was sent out by the AMA recently:

Dear members,

We need your help.

There is talk that the next re authorization bill for the Federal Aviation Administration will eliminate the Special Rule for Model Aircraft – also known as Section 336 – which has allowed AMA to manage our members and fly safely and responsibly, as we have for over 80 years. Losing the Special Rule would be a devastating blow to our hobby.

Please click here to send a letter to your elected representatives in support of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft.

This is a critical moment to let your elected representatives know the importance of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft and the role of community-based organizations such as AMA.

Our community has operated safely for decades – long before the recent advent of drones. Model aviation has played a critical role in the innovations of new technology and encouraging young people to pursue an interest in science and technology fields. More than that, this long-standing hobby has been passed down from generation to generation and is a tradition for many American families.

We need your help to demonstrate the value of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft not only for our community, but everyone. Please make your voices heard by contacting your elected representatives today.

Sincerely,

AMA Government Relations

P.S. When you've finished sending the letter, you will also have an opportunity to call your representatives. We encourage you to take the time for this as well. Thank you.


Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9179
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2018, 07:44:55 PM »
FWIW, apparently the FAA has teed it up and is coming after model aviation again.

Our club president just sent us this message that was sent out by the AMA recently:

Dear members,

We need your help.

There is talk that the next re authorization bill for the Federal Aviation Administration will eliminate the Special Rule for Model Aircraft – also known as Section 336 – which has allowed AMA to manage our members and fly safely and responsibly, as we have for over 80 years. Losing the Special Rule would be a devastating blow to our hobby.

Please click here to send a letter to your elected representatives in support of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft.

This is a critical moment to let your elected representatives know the importance of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft and the role of community-based organizations such as AMA.

Our community has operated safely for decades – long before the recent advent of drones. Model aviation has played a critical role in the innovations of new technology and encouraging young people to pursue an interest in science and technology fields. More than that, this long-standing hobby has been passed down from generation to generation and is a tradition for many American families.

We need your help to demonstrate the value of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft not only for our community, but everyone. Please make your voices heard by contacting your elected representatives today.

Sincerely,

AMA Government Relations

P.S. When you've finished sending the letter, you will also have an opportunity to call your representatives. We encourage you to take the time for this as well. Thank you.

   I got this, too. This was my response:


   This position is untenable and was caused by the action of the AMA Government Relations team over the past2-3 years. A lot of people warned you about this at the time - YOU, THE AMA GOVERNMENT RELATIONS TEAM were cautioned again and again about making no attempt to distinguish between traditional model aviation and the hordes of generally irresponsible “buy-and-fly” drone and ARF consumers.

  The only hope we ever had of trying to claim that we deserved a special carve-out like the Special Rule for Model Aircraft was to try to point to our demonstrated record of responsible behavior. Most of us had some reservations about the “responsible behavior” part for the majority of AMA members (buy-and-fly RC ARFers) but it was at least a plausible argument.

   It became completely implausible when you, the AMA and the associated Government Relations Team, failed to and in fact went out of your way to claim that drone users were exactly the same and deserved the umbrella of previous decades of good behavior that happened long before anyone ever even dreamed of FPV/$100 drones at Wal-Mart.

 Well, drone users ARE NOT participating in model aviation the way the AMA has traditionally defined it, and they ARE NOT responsible users nor are they likely to join the AMA or even know it exists.

  READ THIS  >>>   DRONES WERE/ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE HEAVILY REGULATED BY THE GOVERNMENT  <<<<<

   The endless displays of irresponsible and illegal/unsafe/immoral behavior are legion, they are the mainstream for drones, they aren’t going to stop short of draconian government regulation (and probably not even then given that they will be unenforcable for the casual user). The general public HATES drones and drone users, within months of them becoming commonly available to consumers, we had national TV commercials of people afraid to leave the house because drones were hovering around outside. Drones and irresponsible use of drones is a common trope of TV sitcoms now.

    By tying AMA to drones at every opportunity for the last few years, despite many people telling you to stop (and getting shouted down or even vaguely threatened with “scrutiny” as Chad Budreau did to me when I questioned him about CL and FF on the AMA Government relation blog ) and imbeciles like Bob Brown screeching “Drones are our future!” you have made your current request unsupportable and duplicitous. You first seem to (vaguely) continue to want to associate AMA’s relatively good record with all small air vehicle activity ("not only for our community, but everyone”) which is intellectually dishonest, since we all know, for certain, that his is NOT THE CASE FOR DRONE USERS. And whether you accept it or not:

 DRONES WERE/ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE HEAVILY REGULATED BY THE GOVERNMENT  <<<<<

They still are, you nor anyone else is going to talk them out of it, and now you have irretrievably tied the rest of is to this sinking ship.

    I am sure we all know *why* this is - we/AMA have long since stopped being a service organization and now accept extensive advertising from manufacturers in our magazine. Essentially, we are operating the magazine as a profit center. Whether that is legal or not is a matter for the courts and the IRS. But to keep that going, the magazine needs advertisers. Gee, I open up the latest issue MA, and what do I see on 75% of the pages? Ads for drones and buy-and-fly toys on 75% of the pages, and a few token columns about actual modeling near the back.

     Its far from unclear what you are now claiming - it is that traditional modeling is separate from drone and buy-and-flys and therefore deserves special treatment, or is it that modelers and drone consumers are the same and because we are the AMA, everything will be OK if you give us what we want?  The former would require you to disavow your previous position very strongly and say things like “if it has 4 propellors, hovers, and has a camera, it’s bad and should be made illegal or heavily restricted, and that’s nothing to do with us” and the latter is essentially a false statement that I don’t think even you guys actually believe.

Drones and FPV toys SHOULD be heavily regulated and the AMA has done little or nothing effective to change the situation. You have ABSOLUTELY NO INFLUENCE on drone users and they have no idea the AMA exists when junior cries for the thing at Target, daddy will buy it, and it will end up crashing into Kim Kardashian’s wedding or an innocent bystanders back yard later that day.


  I also resent, in the strongest possible terms, the AMA (an organization I have been a member of for 35 years) attempting to connect me or make me in some way related to drones and buy-and-fly RC imbeciles. I don’t do those, I have nothing to do with those types of toys, and I have nothing to do with the people to do those aside from, now unfortunately, the requirement to belong to the AMA to pursue competition modeling in CONTROL LINE.

    Bottom line is - the AMA government relations group has made this last-second appeal completely unsupportable, and frankly, borderline  fraudulent. When this fails - and it will - then you are responsible. Writing a few letters isn’t going to make any difference because:

 DRONES WERE/ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE HEAVILY REGULATED BY THE GOVERNMENT  <<<<<

   and the AMA Government Relations Team has intentionally lumped the rest of us in with them.

   Brett Buck
   AMA 97012

Offline Paul Walker

  • Charter Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1143
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2018, 07:50:16 PM »
Very well said Brett. Couldn't agree more!

Offline Mike Keville

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2317
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2018, 08:36:54 PM »
Agree, 100% . . . which is why I recently quit the AMA (now known as the Academy of Multirotors & ARFs) after 66 years.

FORMER member, "Academy of Multi-rotors & ARFs".

Offline Mike Keville

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2317
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2018, 09:01:44 PM »
Perhaps it's time we explored the possibility of the formation of an alternative organization -- one which would favor the designing, BUILDING and flying of genuine model aircraft (much as it did it the early years), rather than drones and imported RC foam TOYS.

Any thoughts?
FORMER member, "Academy of Multi-rotors & ARFs".

Offline Steve Fitton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2131
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2018, 09:09:35 PM »
Time to drain the AMA swamp.  Brett for president.
Steve

Offline wwwarbird

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6737
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2018, 09:20:00 PM »
 Right on Brett, hitting the nails squarely on the head.

 This drone nightmare is gradually turning out just like I've been predicting since they first came on scene. The non-modeler oriented short attention span money chasing whore that "our" AMA has evolved itself into is only continuing to dig it's own grave. Right from the start many of us recognized and tried to point the potential (need for separation) issue out to them, but they chose to ignore any common sense forethought and have only had their own "future of Model Aviation" in mind. I've only seen their heads creep further up their a--es instead of focusing from the beginning on the obvious need for drone separation with the attempt to preserve and continue their "80 years of safe operation" history.
 A couple years ago I'd already been debating dropping my membership as it had become clear long before that the current AMA doesn't give a rat's a-- about actual modeling. When I received my issue of MA where AMA President BrownHOLE proclaimed drones as "our future" that ended up being the absolute last straw for me. I damn near puked when I read that comment. 2018 is now my second year as an ex-AMA member, I simply refuse to associate myself with the clueless idiots.

 (BTW) How many here remember the AMA "joining" the forum back when the Registration issue was a hot topic? Go find them in the Member List and take a look at their forum "activity" since. Speaks for itself.  D>K
Narrowly averting disaster since 1964! 

Wayne Willey
Albert Lea, MN U.S.A.
IC C/L Aircraft Modeler, Ex AMA member

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9179
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2018, 09:25:47 PM »
Perhaps it's time we explored the possibility of the formation of an alternative organization -- one which would favor the designing, BUILDING and flying of genuine model aircraft (much as it did it the early years), rather than drones and imported RC foam TOYS.

     I think there are nearly insurmountable hurdles, insurance being the most obvious, but not necessarily the most daunting.

    Say we created a new organization for FF, C/L. and "modeler" R/C people. Let's be very generous with success, and say we get 10,000 members and somehow get insurance.

   The "Special Rule For Model Aircraft" no longer exists, the FAA re-instates the previous registration rule  - which, if you read it, says NOTHING about not applying to C/L, despite the AMA input to the contrary. What would our goal be, and what exactly would we do to improve the situation? We are a tiny fraction of the AMA membership,  you have some high-functioning Autistic or other "engineering type" person like me as your leader, and your organization was formed 6 months ago.

    No one has any "in" with the government apparatchiks  (my close personal friendship with Nancy Pelosi notwithstanding). The AMA would be working against us, which admittedly, based on the recent events, doesn't seem any more threatening than the Keystone Kops, but they managed to deal with the much-large SFA pretty well.

      So, I understand the motivation but I don't see any path to a solution - defining solution as "go back to the current situation with no government interaction".

     Brett
   

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9179
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2018, 09:26:17 PM »
Time to drain the AMA swamp.  Brett for president.

  MAGA - Make AMA Great Again. I even have a hat for it.

    Brett

Offline Mike Griffin

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1353
  • Commander Billy Mitchell Senior Squadron, CAP
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2018, 09:30:30 PM »
I saw this coming some time ago when that moron said that drones were the future of model aviation.  I dropped my membership then and have never looked back.  If and when the day comes when the AMA returns to being a useful organization, I will consider rejoining.  I am not optimistic.

Mike
"If you really want to do something, you will find a way.  If you don't, you'll find an excuse."

Jim Rohn

Online Jim Svitko

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 293
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2018, 09:35:08 PM »
 "Imbecile" is too soft of a word to describe Bob Brown.  When I read his remark about how he thought "drones were our future" I felt like I had been sent back in time and found myself on the Titanic.  The AMA is taking on water and there are no lifeboats.

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9179
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #11 on: April 15, 2018, 09:42:46 PM »
Very well said Brett. Couldn't agree more!

   Unfortunately, it's little more than just venting, because they are far too committed - and have committed us - to this doomed association.

     I don't know for sure what they were thinking, but surely they aren't clueless enough to not see the issue. I can only imagine that they saw the drone wave, thought they could hijack it to get more influence, and had it backfire on them. That's a matter of overestimating their own importance - which is more-or-less what you would expect from a bunch of small-town "Babbitt"s who are used to being the big fish in a small pond (of their own creation).

     Now, they may be realizing that no one cares what they think and they have overplayed their hand, and are desperate for the rest of us to innundate our congressperson with letters of woe that support the "misrepresentation" they have promulgated.

        BTW, I note that the leader of this pack, Rich Hansen, is a generally good guy, but the AMA has gotten themselves in WAY over their heads, probably with no malicious intent, just good old fashioned bumbling and lack of perspective.

    Brett
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 12:54:53 PM by Brett Buck »

Offline Dane Martin

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2350
  • heli pilot BHOR
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #12 on: April 15, 2018, 10:57:57 PM »
They are so far committed in the drone lifestyle, you can actually purchase your commercial drone insurance through the AMA. It's advertised in the newest mags and emails. Well written reply to them Brett, but I'm thinking droning around is paying the big bucks.

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9179
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #13 on: April 15, 2018, 11:17:20 PM »
They are so far committed in the drone lifestyle, you can actually purchase your commercial drone insurance through the AMA. It's advertised in the newest mags and emails. Well written reply to them Brett, but I'm thinking droning around is paying the big bucks.

 I am sure that is how the AMA brain trust sees it. What they apparently do not see is that this GIANT fad and industry involvement is going shove them aside at the earliest opportunity.

     Brett

Offline Skip Chernoff

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 961
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2018, 05:53:47 AM »
Vince thanks for bringing this topic up. I agree 100% with all of you guys. The AMA is about the money now and not about real modelers.They have lost their way......PhillySkip

Online Dave_Trible

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 4450
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2018, 07:23:37 AM »
I believe there is no real practical way to separate from the AMA and still maintain our insurance, Nationals and quite simply our history and roots.  I think we should rather do the opposite and go work hard to take the organization back through voting and/or running for office.  We know our numbers are declining and that is likely what they are looking at and are hoping to bolster membership but at what cost?  Better to stay who we are (were?) than to evolve into something we can't recognize and in this case, be swept into the dustbin.  I hope it's not too late.  I got a good reply and vote from my senator last time...I'm going to write another letter.

Dave

I can't remember the last controlliner in office at AMA....Can anyone?
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 08:05:46 AM by Dave_Trible »
AMA 20934
FAA Certificate FA3ATY4T94

Offline Dane Martin

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2350
  • heli pilot BHOR
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2018, 07:39:07 AM »
Here's what's going on with the insurance, if you haven't seen it. I've always been a big supporter of the AMA. I even defended the Drone guys, because I knew several RC helicopter guys that picked up the quadcopter habit responsibly.
But this to me is asking for trouble. They're advertising that they can supply insurance by using their 40+ year existence of supplying members with insurance for recreational flying. Nothing about modeling. Sounds like simply an insurance company now.

https://quote.amadroneinsurance.com/quote/?source=Facebook

Offline Russell Shaffer

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1334
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2018, 08:14:52 AM »
I got this from the FAA a while back.  I sent a short email emphasizing that cl models are tethered and cannot get more than 70 feet from the pilot.  They don't seem to care about that so Brett has a very good point about cl NOT being exempt from the UAS regulations as they are currently written.

 UAShelp@faa.gov <UAShelp@faa.gov>
To:
pattiandruss@yahoo.com

Aug 4, 2017 at 12:01 PM

Thank you for your inquiry. Yes, a control line model airplane is considered a UAS and would need to be operated in accordance with UAS rules. Additional information can be found at https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/.

Regards,
FAA UAS Integration Office
UAShelp@faa.gov
www.faa.gov/uas
Russell Shaffer
Klamath Falls, Oregon
Just North of the California border

Offline Mike Griffin

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1353
  • Commander Billy Mitchell Senior Squadron, CAP
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2018, 09:03:44 AM »
I do not often get on a rant about much of anything anymore but I never thought I would see in my lifetime as big a mess as this has turned into and the whole thing goes back to greed, it always does.   Brett's response was excellent and right on point.  Anytime you get the government involved in anything it always turns into a cluster.  This whole mess is a shame and what is a bigger shame is that it could have been avoided.

Mike
"If you really want to do something, you will find a way.  If you don't, you'll find an excuse."

Jim Rohn

Offline Jim Kraft

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2938
  • AMA78415
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2018, 09:55:23 AM »
I m 77 years old, and two years ago came down with a disease that was curable, but at the time did not think I would ever fly again. I dropped my AMA after having been a member since 67. At that time is seemed inevitable to me that the FAA had gotten their nose under the tent, and it was over. As I am feeling much better this year and believe I will be able to fly again, I was almost considering re joining AMA.

Now this. At least it came before I made that mistake. Let em eat figs. I will fly at my grand daughters farm just a few miles from me for fun. Or maybe build a tether car. But no more competition. It just ain't worth the trouble.

I predict AMA numbers will continue to drop as people who never were modelers become tired of their arfs and move on to something else.

Just my opinion, but this all started way back when we decided to change the name of our activity from a hobby to a sport. It has been going down hill ever since. I have watched people come and go who buy huge ARF's, fly for a couple of years and move on to something else. They have no investment in the hobby but money. They do not know how to repair anything because they have never built anything.

But Hey, AMA loved them. They were bringing in the money, to there advertisers and to the AMA. Well, now the house of cards is falling. They did it to themselves.
Jim Kraft

Eric Viglione

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2018, 10:08:11 AM »
     I think there are nearly insurmountable hurdles, insurance being the most obvious, but not necessarily the most daunting.

    Say we created a new organization for FF, C/L. and "modeler" R/C people. Let's be very generous with success, and say we get 10,000 members and somehow get insurance.

   The "Special Rule For Model Aircraft" no longer exists, the FAA re-instates the previous registration rule  - which, if you read it, says NOTHING about not applying to C/L, despite the AMA input to the contrary. What would our goal be, and what exactly would we do to improve the situation? We are a tiny fraction of the AMA membership,  you have some high-functioning Autistic or other "engineering type" person like me as your leader, and your organization was formed 6 months ago.

    No one has any "in" with the government apparatchiks  (my close personal friendship with Nancy Pelosi notwithstanding). The AMA would be working against us, which admittedly, based on the recent events, doesn't seem any more threatening than the Keystone Kops, but they managed to deal with the much-large SFA pretty well.

      So, I understand the motivation but I don't see any path to a solution - defining solution as "go back to the current situation with no government interaction".

     Brett
 

Brett - I haven't devoted the time or brain cells to think this all the way through, but my gut response is that our best chance of success would come from going the SAM style route, maybe even reinvigorating them by joining forces for a common goal. That would help, because joining forces with other perceptibly harmless forms of modeling that might also like to distance themselves from AMA could lend strength to our dwindling numbers. Something along the line of a flat earth society of modelers, anchored in traditional modeling and rejecting the whole drone, GPS, FPV, unmanned flying camp right in the bylaws. Heck, even military reenactors which can get insurance through reenactorsinsurance.com, and can go play with things that sound like cannons and go boom, legally as a group. I dunno, but one would think there should be a logical way through this.

Offline Serge_Krauss

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1140
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2018, 11:21:57 AM »
I do not think that I will register my models with the FAA. Also, it appears to me from reading original AMA event rules and apparent intentions of those rules (one can search my once seemingly interminable BOM responses) that the AMA was originally created for and assumed to be an organization of and for people who built and flew models. It obviously is not so now. Except for the insurance and now questionable representation, it bears really only modest  relevance to what I do in modeling. Our position seems worse than vulnerable. So, flying close enough to Cleveland Hopkins Airport, I can see that we may be open to some potentially hostile government acts if not registered. Quite a few people seem to have forgotten though that we are supposed to be our government through real representation, rather than what we have now. I'm not trying to be cute or pompous, but at age 73 now, I still don't think I'll register my control-line models. - SK

Offline Bob Heywood

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 773
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #22 on: April 16, 2018, 12:26:41 PM »
The following is a true account:

One of our club members occasionally likes to fly at Cincinnati's Lunken Airport C/L field. While flying there one day last season a person associated with the airport came by to see what was going on. Now, there hasn't been hardly any activity there for awhile. It seems that someone at the airport reported seeing drone activity at the field. The guy, a CFI at Lunken, who came to investigate was totally ignorant of C/L and had no idea that the C/L field was even there. Once our member gave him a quick tutorial he was satisfied that there was no threat to airport operations. But, a second guy showed up, this time from the tower. Like the first, he had absolutely no idea that anything like C/L even existed. Again, a quick tutorial. Everything ended OK but there was the indication that the main FAA guy in the tower was pretty worked up over the situation. Hopefully his scout was able to get things calmed down.

The point, as far as anyone out side our circle is concerned, everything is a drone. Brace yourselves.
"Clockwise Forever..."

Offline Vincent Judd

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 225
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2018, 01:21:17 PM »
Some great conversation, but just as I figured, everyone is looking at this as a reason to attack the AMA, and as much as I agree with most of the negativity about the AMA listed above, my feelings are that they are not the bad guys in this latest attack on our hobby/sport.  They are actually trying to defend us, or help us to defend ourselves. The real culprits are the bureaucrats in the FAA and the knuckleheads who buy their grand kids a $1.000 drone for a Christmas present and then allow them to fly them in an unsupervised reckless manner, threatening airplanes, civilians, and whatever.  With all the terrorism that we're dealing with now, I'm sure that there are many governmental officials who look at drones of any nature as a terror attack waiting to happen.  Whether you like the drones or not, they're here to stay.  Unfortunately, as Bob mentioned above, anyone associated with model airplanes of any type is automatically lumped in with the folks flying drones, as unfair as that may be.  The amount of money being spent every day on drones is shocking.  We walked in to an Apple store the other day just to look around, and sure enough, $1,400 drones sitting right there next to laptops and I phones.  Anyone can buy them and I guarantee you, they are never informed of the restrictions involving the safe operation of drones.

"Rumored"  things that we may be faced with if this nonsense from the FAA manages to get passed:

Each pilot would be required to take a 60 question "aeronautical" quiz and pay for a FAA "remote pilot license"  in order to fly.

Transponders placed in every aircraft.

Can they do it?  Can they enforce it?  Will it affect those of us who fly C/L?  I don't know.  I guess if you're not flying R/C or C/L at a registered club, or you're flying on your grandfather's farm somewhere, this won't affect you.  I  happen to fly R/C and C/L at my local R/C club and it will definitely affect me and many others in a similar situation.  My feelings are, if this gets passed, what's next?  It seems like we're only a couple of pen strokes away from not being able to fly anything anywhere and that troubles me.  I plan on sending in my objections to my local representatives, at least if this nonsense gets passed, I tried to speak my voice.

The really ridiculous thing about all of this is that the people flying drones are mostly unaware of any governmental restrictions because no one tells them about them.  They won't hear about all of this, they won't do anything and they'll keep flying their drones in an unsafe, dangerous manner.  These are the people that the FAA needs to focus on, not us. Those of us who have been flying model airplanes for most of our lives and never done anything remotely dangerous, will pay the price. 




Offline Juan Valentin

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 446
  • USAF 1969-73 ANG 73-77
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #24 on: April 16, 2018, 02:12:44 PM »

         I have been a modeler and AMA member for over 35 years and my feeling is that the AMA failed us. There is no modeling in flying drones.  The defense of the drones should have been in the shoulders of the drone manufacturers, sellers and individuals operating them. If the FAA wants to regulate/ban them to protect civil aviation and the public it would be fine by me. The AMA got swayed by the Advertising dollars and the thought that they could increase membership. Most of our activities as modelers are confined to flying fields and line of sight. My experience has been that the majority of drone users don`t know and don`t care about the AMA. 
                                                                                                                                                                                            Juan
                                                                                                                                                                                       AMA110695

Offline Fredvon4

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1632
  • Central Texas
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #25 on: April 16, 2018, 03:08:16 PM »
Guy kills kids at a school with AR 15....Restrict or Ban All AR 15s...
Drone causes mayhem and destruction.... Restrict or ban all aero flight tethered or other wise


in the end legal law abiding citizens are punished for the acts of a very very few bad actors

I long ago stated that the AMA had it wrong..the DOT/FAA ruling ( by un-elected butt heads) never did exclude control line flight...despite AMA's assertions

screw the AMA...call and write (Snail Mail) your senators and congress men and insist the Special Rule for Model Aircraft be supported and strengthened
"A good scare teaches more than good advice"

Fred von Gortler IV

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9179
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #26 on: April 16, 2018, 03:10:29 PM »
Some great conversation, but just as I figured, everyone is looking at this as a reason to attack the AMA, and as much as I agree with most of the negativity about the AMA listed above, my feelings are that they are not the bad guys in this latest attack on our hobby/sport.  They are actually trying to defend us, or help us to defend ourselves.

   Probably true. However, my point was that the current path is unsupportable, essentially, attempting to conflate two unrelated problems in order to have their cake (essentially mandatory drone user signup for the AMA and making the advertisers happy)  and eat it too (essentially, lying about the nature of the issue like saying the record from the past with one type of AMA member relates in some way to the present and future of utterly irresponsible drone and ARF/RTF toy use). And trying to make me and you complicit in it.

      I cannot be a party to or support something that is this blatantly false, hence my response. They may be doing their best and maybe it all makes sense to them, but if so, that is even MORE deluded.

  As noted above, it's no more than a rant, I have no path forward that results in an acceptable situation, because this thing has been so royally FUBAR'ed from the start that I don't see a way out.

     Drones *will* be regulated, with metaphysical certainty, and the way things are now, the rest of us are very likely to go down with them.


The real culprits are the bureaucrats in the FAA and the knuckleheads who buy their grand kids a $1.000 drone for a Christmas present and then allow them to fly them in an unsupervised reckless manner, threatening airplanes, civilians, and whatever. 

<< snip  >>
The really ridiculous thing about all of this is that the people flying drones are mostly unaware of any governmental restrictions because no one tells them about them.  They won't hear about all of this, they won't do anything and they'll keep flying their drones in an unsafe, dangerous manner.  These are the people that the FAA needs to focus on, not us. Those of us who have been flying model airplanes for most of our lives and never done anything remotely dangerous, will pay the price.

   Agreed and a point I made here and elsewhere several times over the past 10-15 years. Unfortunately, as with most government action, it will cripple the wrong people (us) and make no difference to the right people (the irresponsible drone users), since only the responsible will even care about complying.

     Brett

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9179
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #27 on: April 16, 2018, 03:18:25 PM »
Guy kills kids at a school with AR 15....Restrict or Ban All AR 15s...
Drone causes mayhem and destruction.... Restrict or ban all aero flight tethered or other wise


in the end legal law abiding citizens are punished for the acts of a very very few bad actors

I long ago stated that the AMA had it wrong..the DOT/FAA ruling ( by un-elected butt heads) never did exclude control line flight...despite AMA's assertions

   I asked the AMA to get a statement to that effect from the FAA and that was when Budreau suggested that we not push too hard because that might subject us to "scrutiny" from the AMA and FAA, and, you know, a sort of "nice event you have there, it would be a shame if something were to happen to it..." sort of thing. They are utterly and completely uninterested in making any distinctions between model types, from scratch-built indoor and scale, to a pile of crap quadcopter from the Wal-Mart checkout lane. So they won't even attempt to get a clarification of this issue for C/L.

   By the way, I actually *believe* that the people pushing for drone regulation probably do not intend to include C/L and FF, much as the AMA claims. However, there is absolutely no evidence of that having been written down, promulgated, or in any way made clear to anyone involved and if questioned the FAA will make *no* distinctions whatsoever. If its more than 150 grams, and goes into the air, the regulations apply.

    Brett

Online peabody

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2565
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #28 on: April 16, 2018, 03:48:28 PM »
With the demand for licensed drone flyers going up geometrically, the FAA is looking at EASING some of the existing regs.....

The drone flyers will prevail....because there is a need,,,,,

Online Jim Svitko

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 293
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2018, 04:12:40 PM »
Just wondering where the bureaucrats eventually draw the line:  If those who make the rules are sticklers for those rules, then a kid's kite, which is tethered like our planes, will have to be registered?  And, a paper airplane that is heavy enough, and I toss it out the window, will have to be registered?  Or, do I have this wrong? 

Offline Vincent Judd

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 225
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #30 on: April 16, 2018, 05:59:07 PM »
OK, I give up.  Brett is the only one who gets it. 

I should have known better than to talk anything other than C/L on this forum.  The FAA isn't going after the people who fly drones, they're going after the people who fly model airplanes.

Just remember, once the FAA gets to regulate R/C flying,  the next groups they'll come after are all the other special interest groups.  Then the kids flying kites.  Glad I have golf, shooting, RC boats and RC cars to fall back on in my old age.


Online Jim Svitko

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 293
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #31 on: April 16, 2018, 06:58:30 PM »
Oh, I get it, all right.  And, many others as well.  There is no limit to government stupidity.  That was what I was trying to say.  We know it is ludicrous to register a kite, but rules are rules, right?  The snowball has started down the mountain.



Offline wwwarbird

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6737
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #32 on: April 16, 2018, 07:18:41 PM »
Just my opinion, but this all started way back when we decided to change the name of our activity from a hobby to a sport. It has been going down hill ever since. I have watched people come and go who buy huge ARF's, fly for a couple of years and move on to something else. They have no investment in the hobby but money. They do not know how to repair anything because they have never built anything.

But Hey, AMA loved them. They were bringing in the money, to there advertisers and to the AMA. Well, now the house of cards is falling. They did it to themselves.


 Very true Jim, very true.
Narrowly averting disaster since 1964! 

Wayne Willey
Albert Lea, MN U.S.A.
IC C/L Aircraft Modeler, Ex AMA member

Offline Gary Dowler

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #33 on: April 16, 2018, 07:43:44 PM »
Brett, I hope you take this as the compliment it's intended to be. When you get on a roll answering something, you do it in such a reasoned out and concise manner that it reminds me of when Rush Limbaugh jokes about himself saying "when I say it, there is nothing left to be said".

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I appreciate the effort you put into your responses.

Gary
Profanity is the crutch of the illiterate mind

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9179
More of the same...
« Reply #34 on: April 17, 2018, 01:10:15 AM »
Here's the response I got, and my return response:


Quote
On Apr 16, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Chad Budreau <chadb@modelaircraft.org> wrote:

Mr. Buck,

We will share your letter with Rich Hanson.

I should clarify that AMA believes capable model aircraft (drones) that can navigate beyond visual line of sight should be subject to additional regulations such as Remote ID - http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2017/12/20/what-does-remote-id-and-tracking-mean-for-our-members/.    Our language on Capitol Hill to address 336 and recreational operations also makes the same distinction.  The legislative language goes a step further and creates a second recreational path for drone operators who do not want to fly under a CBO.  With that said, we have many members using drones safely and responsibly.  Members are using drones to support their photography hobby, to conduct sanctioned AMA racing, and in the classroom for STEM. We should not exclude members from enjoying drones under our safety programming because of a handful of irresponsible operators outside our community.

I also want to explain that this letter writing campaign is not a last-ditch effort.  AMA has been working with Congress for years on this issue, but it is now going public as companies like Google, Amazon, CNN, and Ford are making public statements.  As a result, the letter writing campaign is AMA's approach to publicly replying with our position.

Chad


   I use the word “last-ditch” effort because even after trying to manage this situation - which has been clearly coming for many years now - we are now at the cusp of the complete and casual destruction of model aviation. This is largely because the AMA has consistently and intentionally failed to make any distinction between the responsible modelers whose record you are quoting, and the buy-and-fly drone idiots who have no concept or association with the AMA. This is progressing precisely as predicted about 3 years ago when the AMA started emitting these pleas for assistance.

  In any case, your love of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft seems pretty selective. When I and many other people requested a few years ago that you challenge the UAV registration rules based on the Special Rule, you refused, saying you were “considering your options”. Eventually, it fell to an *individual* who won on the basis we argued, almost immediately.

  Of course, now the next blatantly obvious domino has fallen, if the Special Rule is standing in the way of the FAA (and general public’s) desire that drones be regulated, then get rid of the Special Rule. All of this is entirely unsurprising and was the obvious that it was going to play out this way from day 1. DRONES WERE ALWAYS GOING TO BE REGULATED, and unless you can draw a clean line of separation between drones and modeling, we are all going to get regulated. But what did we do? We tied model aviation inextricably to drones.

    DRONES ARE NOT MODEL AIRCRAFT and drone operators are not engaging in MODEL AVIATION. They are toy purchasers.

As long as you associate drones with traditional model aviation, you have made the Special Rule For Model Aircraft COMPLETELY INDEFENSIBLE. <<<<<

   Please try to understand OUR position, rather than merely repeating what you have said again - these no-commitment consumer toys *have nothing to do with model aviation* and *have nothing to do with the previous 80 years of responsible operation*.

 The “responsible operation” to which you refer, and the “80 years”, both refer to something THAT WAS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH BUY-AND-FLY toys. FF existed before the AMA, and CL existed from about 1939 but took off seriously after the war. Consumer RC in any form wasn’t really practical until the 70’s and for a considerable time afterwards, RC continued as a legitimate modeling activity. Some people in RC still conduct themselves as modelers and are generally responsible.   

   When building and finishing the mode from component parts was the only way to fly, that filtered for people with some commitment to the craft and some sense of the scale of what they were attempting to do. These are the people who are the source of your “responsible operation”.

   Current RC toy consumers (likely the majority of the current AMA membership) are for the most part NOT modelers in any sense of the word, they purchase the airplane on a lark, pre-built, or with a “few minutes of unskilled work” to assemble.  These people are not “modelers”, the majority couldn’t assemble the simplest RC trainer successfully.

The people doing this have no sense at all of what “Responsible operation” might mean, and fly over/around other fliers, other people’s property, in tiny parks, etc. and don’t even consider  what you call the “Safety code”. I am not going to repeat the litany of examples of irresponsible behavior on the part of these casual toy purchasers, AMA or otherwise, because you undoubtedly know of many such stories yourself. No matter what stupid thing they do (like fly a 1/4 Scale P-47 RTF over a Little League game), if you complain, they assure everyone “they have insurance” as if waving an AMA Card over someone’s dead body will cause them to spring back to life.

  So, swell, RC ARF pilots are largely incompetent and irresponsible. It’s been going on like this to varying degrees for the last 25-30 years. Making the argument that the AMA has improved it and therefore deserves special consideration is specious, but OK, it was possible to overlook this highly dubious truth for a greater good.

  Then, along comes first “Park Fliers” and now Drones/quadcopters. Park fliers are probably not much of an issue, the same imbeciles fly them in the same irresponsible manner but the potential for damage is minimal. Drones and FPV are another story. Again, you know the examples as well as I do, but irresponsible use is the norm, it’s a rare case indeed that they are used both legally and sensibly. There is *no* commitment required, you buy it at a store or order it from Amazon.com, it shows up, you charge it, then fly it into the neighbor’s back yard.

   IT has NOTHING to do with model aviation and requires neither any sort of commitment nor any real understanding of how it works, what the risks are, or what would constitute responsible operation.

 This alone takes your premise from merely questionable (as above), to absurd. DRONES WERE ALWAYS GOING TO BE REGULATED, that is immutable truth that you and I cannot change. And that is THE CORRECT SOLUTION.

   In fact, we/AMA should want that, so that these legions of fad-chasing idiots are kept away from the rest of us legally.

   On the contrary, however, we have jumped in with both feet, fully embracing the drone crowd and everything that comes along with it, like the incontrovertible fact that DRONES ARE GOING TO BE REGULATED, period, end of story. Unless you can draw a clear distinction, to the FAA, everything is a drone, so EVERYTHING GETS REGULATED.

   This then brings up the question of why we are doing this. That is pretty easily answered, the Official Publication of the august Academy of Model Aeronautics looks more like the Sears Christmas Toy catalog than the journal of model aircraft construction. I took a copy of MA and categorized each page, and I rate approximately *80*% of the content to either be an explicit advertisement for some buy-and-fly toy, a “product review” that amounts to a stealth ad for a buy-and-fly toy, or a hallmark example of irresponsible flying usually with “product placement” (like hovering a 1/3 scale RTF airplane 18” off the ground a few feet from a crowd with the “Hangar 9” decal clearly and prominently displayed.

  OK, swell, making money is not a sin. But is sure doesn’t say anything positive about our vaunted “educational activities” that we claim as the basis of special carveout. We are a toy catalog. We are pandering to the drone crowd and to the manufacturers so we can fill the magazine with ads. But by doing so, you are tying this rotting albatross around the rest of our necks.

   The upshot of all this is that because the AMA Government Relations Team have failed to make any distinction between the responsible past AMA members and the buy-and-fly idiots who are currently crashing drones into every stationary and moving object, we are very close to losing the entire hobby, and you are now asking us to support something that is obviously false.

  My airplanes do not contain software, servos, gyros, electronics, nor a battery, nor do they use a ground control station, and cannot move further than 76 feet off the ground. It is constrained to the surface of a sphere mechanically, with a mechanical connection possessing a 4x margin of safety over the flight loads. Now, because the AMA’s attempt to pander to the drone/buy-and-fly idiots, we are going to lose the entire hobby.

   Brett

Offline Frank Imbriaco

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 685
  • At the 69 Willow Grove NATS with J.D. FALCON II
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #35 on: April 17, 2018, 05:46:35 AM »
The FAA shut down a stunt meet in early August, 2017 . Reason ? It was 5 miles away from Trump's Bedminster , NJ summer retreat.  The meet was to be held at an R/C field where they're wouldn't have been anything but tethered flight.
I politely wrote 2x to  President Hanson in August, 2017 about the NOTAM rule.
No reply .
I'm still waiting for Eric Williams, AMA District 2 VP to get back to me (since August 2017).

AMA Gov't Liaison Chad B. ???   
He struck out looking and has since been hiding in the dugout.

I'm forever done reaching out to the AMA for help.

Offline Scott Richlen

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1215
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #36 on: April 17, 2018, 08:47:58 AM »
Very well said Brett.

One other point that indicates how "sick" AMA has become is their endless pursuit of the Community Based Organization endorsement from the Federal government.  They claim that it would allow them to manage model aviation independent from FAA involvement.  Good argument.

However, CBOs are actually more associated with organizations like Acorn that saw their association with the government through a CBO as a route to Federal funding.  A way to get free money courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

Beyond that, a CBO is nothing more than an anti-democratic institution creating an un-needed "layer" between the citizen and his government.  As you can see by this current mess that AMA has created, a CBO does not necessarily represent those whom they claim to represent.  Neither are they required to represent those they claim to represent.  The AMA has wandered far off the path from what it once was and is now an organization most interested in its own viability and interests.  Not those of its members.

Unfortunately, our main hope of rescue would be from the IRS who should be threatening the AMA for its commercial activities (such as insurance sales to commercial drone enterprises) which are well outside the bounds of its "educational" chartering.  But with a corrupt IRS, we have no hope of that either.

What a "downer-fest" this is becoming....  :P

Offline JoeJust

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1491
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #37 on: April 17, 2018, 09:38:31 AM »
A fairly recent trial in the sate of Washington has had an interesting point made by the hearing judge.
The defense argued that his client, was a member of the AMA and that group has a recommended safety designation which is followed by all AMA membership.
The judge then made the following comment before finding the man on trail guilty. "While there is a safety guide for AMA members, there is no proof that this member ever read the safety guide."
The trial was over a R/C drone that had lost control and landed in a group of people that were waiting for their entry into a Settle area march for recognition of a social/political position.  The pilot was found guilty of several charges. the AMA has never commented on this ruling.
Joe
I only enter contests so somebody else is not always in last place

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9179
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #38 on: April 17, 2018, 10:02:13 AM »
Beyond that, a CBO is nothing more than an anti-democratic institution creating an un-needed "layer" between the citizen and his government.  As you can see by this current mess that AMA has created, a CBO does not necessarily represent those whom they claim to represent.  Neither are they required to represent those they claim to represent.  The AMA has wandered far off the path from what it once was and is now an organization most interested in its own viability and interests.  Not those of its members.

   The same can be said of the FAA itself. It is created by a law to generate regulations, which are effectively laws, but without any direct accountability to an elected official. A CBO that more-or-less works is the ARRL.   Most of government currently works this way now, with layer after layer of TLAs between the elected and the consequences of regulation.

    The effect has to create the same situation found in parlimentary governments - an effectively permanent "civil service" class that actually does all the work and control what happens. The elected officials show up every 2-4-6 years but are ever-changing, but the regulation goes on and on, and all of the decisions are made by shadowy apparatchiks and lobbyists. Adding a CBO layer like the ARRL or as the AMA wishes is even more insulation for the elected officials.

   This is the "swamp" or the "dark state" which has run things since they were given free reign in the 30s (where their first efforts managed to create and then extend the great depression for 5-6 years longer than it should have lasted).

     I think the AMA still has the notion that they can somehow manipulate this situation to their own benefit, but that seems unlikely. Their best argument is alleging the 50,000 "youth members"who will be lost. I would like to see an objective accounting of that number, since I doubt it is accurate, but it is consistent with the myths they have been attempting to create since the 30's; specifically that model aviation is somehow primarily a youth education activity that creates the leaders of tomorrow. That has been blatantly false since about 1928, when the "Lindberg effect" wore off, but they have gotten a lot of mileage lying about it, so maybe.

    Brett

Offline Dane Martin

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2350
  • heli pilot BHOR
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #39 on: April 17, 2018, 10:14:50 AM »

The trial was over a R/C drone that had lost control and landed in a group of people that were waiting for their entry into a Settle area march for recognition of a social/political position.  The pilot was found guilty of several charges. the AMA has never commented on this ruling.
Joe

If I were the AMA, I wouldn't comment either. It says very clearly in the safety code
"I will avoid flying directly over unprotected people, moving vehicles, and occupied
structures."
Sounds like he was wasn't prepared for a failure and was too close to people. I don't know the details, but if ALL the safety codes were followed, this may not have happened. If any codes weren't followed, then it's not on the AMA. It's a guy who made the decision to not follow the rules and is going to have to pay for his decision. It's terrible, but that's why there's safety rules.

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9179
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #40 on: April 17, 2018, 11:23:51 AM »
If I were the AMA, I wouldn't comment either. It says very clearly in the safety code
"I will avoid flying directly over unprotected people, moving vehicles, and occupied
structures."
Sounds like he was wasn't prepared for a failure and was too close to people

    In a previous attempt to get us to lobby the government, the AMA District X AVP tried to convince David and I that no one should get in any trouble or have any problem with flying over someone's back yard to "extend their approach" if necessary, and that claiming that flying over other people who are not involved (innocent bystanders) was a "right" that some California regulation was going to infringe.

    The same opinion was expressed here, too, in a previous thread related to this topic, with regard to some RC site that was surrounded on 4 sides by high-density housing and "had to be flown over" because the site was too small to permit otherwise. I mean what are they supposed to do, not fly there just because the airplane might crash into little Jimmy's backyard birthday party?

    Brett

Offline Ted Fancher

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1639
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #41 on: April 17, 2018, 01:02:38 PM »
I've often stated in print and on line that Brett Buck is the smartest guy I know.  I'm not going to embarrass myself myself by pretending to "amplify" on his remarks.

Well stated, my friend.

Alas, for valid lay argument to succeed there have to be responsible listeners.

Ted Fancher

Offline Dane Martin

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2350
  • heli pilot BHOR
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #42 on: April 17, 2018, 02:03:19 PM »

    I mean what are they supposed to do, not fly there just because the airplane might crash into little Jimmy's backyard birthday party?

    Brett

Fly 3d helicopters. We take up less room. Final approach is much more manageable.

Offline Randy Cuberly

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3630
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #43 on: April 17, 2018, 03:14:15 PM »
My fear is the only real solution to any of this continuing Government Regulation by unelected officials who have no real authority over "The People" is going to be simply "Do not obey them".  Yes it's called "Civil Disobedience" and it certainly can have drastic consequences.  It also is the only way to stop runaway Government dictators that do not answer to elections!

Runaway government dictators have infiltrated nearly every facet of our government and our society.
Unfortunately the situation is much larger and more important than model airplanes, but it has to start somewhere.
I believe a Tea Tax started the last one!

It nearly always results in Revolution and that is sometimes successful, and sometimes NOT!

It is clear in situations like this however "Obey or Disobey".

Personally, I will not register my Control Line Model Airplane with the FAA because I consider it a stupid overreach of their authority!

Choose your sides gentlemen!

It nearly always comes down to that!

Randy Cuberly

 
Randy Cuberly
Tucson, AZ

Offline Steve Helmick

  • AMA Member and supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 8415
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #44 on: April 17, 2018, 04:43:15 PM »
Same here, Randy. I hope somebody will throw my bail, if it comes down to that. My story is that "The AMA said we didn't have to register our CL and FF airplanes", and I'm sticking to it.   >:(  Steve
In 1944 18-20 year old's stormed beaches, and parachuted behind enemy lines to almost certain death.

In 2015 18-20 year old's need safe zones so people don't hurt their feelings.

"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." General Mattis.

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9179
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #45 on: April 17, 2018, 04:52:10 PM »
Brett, I hope you take this as the compliment it's intended to be. When you get on a roll answering something, you do it in such a reasoned out and concise manner that it reminds me of when Rush Limbaugh jokes about himself saying "when I say it, there is nothing left to be said".

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I appreciate the effort you put into your responses.

  I do take it as a compliment, and appreciate it. I am not sure about "nothing left to say" (since I managed to blurp out another 500 or so words on the topic...), but for the most part, my professional "work product" are technical reports describing how something works and why it meets some requirement. This has to be sufficiently clear to be understood by other engineers in a very complex subject, and to be reproducible to people 20-30 years from now, so both clarity and brevity count.

   Brett

Offline Target

  • C/L Addict
  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #46 on: April 17, 2018, 05:04:34 PM »
I said this before, and will say it again:

The AMA should have steered the FAA into what makes sense-
Register the FPV gear at point of sale to the owner.
That locks in registration, and leaves line of sight traditional RC where it should be, separated from real drones.
Traditional modeling has never been an issue for the FAA.
Only with the onset of First Person View RC, has there been issues.
And control line models are most CERTAINLY posing the least danger to the National Airspace.

The AMA should have never embraced multi-rotors and FPV the way they did. I'm not that smart, but it was obvious to even me what the result would be.

R,
Target
Regards,
Chris
AMA 5956

Offline john e. holliday

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 19892
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #47 on: April 17, 2018, 06:02:54 PM »
Well the old DOC didn't register the first or any time after.  I did renew my AMA as I want to be able to fly at areas that require AMA license. 

Now if we had the numbers and money in control line  like some of these people there would be no problem.  Its just the so called people sitting on their fat arses that want more money to cross the palm. S?P
John E. "DOC" Holliday
10421 West 56th Terrace
Shawnee, KANSAS  66203
AMA 23530

Offline Steve Thompson

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 121
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #48 on: April 17, 2018, 06:19:59 PM »
In the days of old, around the 1990's, if you were not basically AT an airport, anything up to 500' above ground level was "Uncontrolled Airspace".  What a bad name, so they changed it to "Class G" airspace.

With recent regulatory "improvements", the FAA claims to control everything from the grass on up.  Thus their claim to have authority and control of UAVs (drones) and our models.

You can't even fly freely on private property with this interpretation.

The word here is CONTROL.

I believe that unreasonable laws that cannot or will not be obeyed are a form of tyranny that weakens our country. 

Offline wwwarbird

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6737
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #49 on: April 17, 2018, 08:26:30 PM »
 Just another ignorant sidestepping line of crap with the AMA's reply from Chad to Brett above...

 "With that said, we have many members using drones safely and responsibly.  Members are using drones to support their photography hobby, to conduct sanctioned AMA racing, and in the classroom for STEM. We should not exclude members from enjoying drones under our safety programming because of a handful of irresponsible operators outside our community."

 As most of us here know the main problems/issues won't come from the "many safe and responsible" drone operators who are legitimate AMA members. Thing is, that group makes up far less than 1% of all the drone operators out there and will never amount to more than that. The blatantly obvious problem and the exact reason that separation is needed stems from the other 99% of them in the world (the real-world group that the AMA conveniently and constantly goes without discussing).
 
 In the AMA's little dream world I also believe it's that 99% that they are still (quietly) hoping to get a piece of the $$$ pie of, which will never happen, be mentioned, or admitted to. From the day the first quad or drone was ever sold to the public the AMA screwed up by not immediately recognizing and jumping on the need for separation from model aviation. As a result "our" AMA "voice" has themselves painted into a corner, is blowing the future of the hobby for all of us, and is never going to admit it.

« Last Edit: April 17, 2018, 08:56:14 PM by wwwarbird »
Narrowly averting disaster since 1964! 

Wayne Willey
Albert Lea, MN U.S.A.
IC C/L Aircraft Modeler, Ex AMA member


Tags: