News:




  • December 09, 2018, 05:57:23 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Here we go again  (Read 10585 times)

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 #50 on: April 18, 2018, 04:53:30 AM »
The AMA should've stayed in D.C.


Offline Scott Richlen

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1215
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #51 on: April 18, 2018, 06:39:53 AM »
What is really annoying is their inability to see any pathway forward than the one that they have envisioned and is now failing them.  So they keep repeating their bizarre vision of what a model airplane is and what this hobby is about.

"We're unsinkable and that isn't an iceberg.... We're unsinkable and that isn't an iceberg....We're unsinkable and that isn't an iceberg....We're unsinkable and that isn't an iceberg....We're unsinkable and that isn't an iceberg....We're unsinkable and that isn't an iceberg....We're unsinkable and that isn't an iceberg....We're unsinkable and that isn't an iceberg....We're unsinkable and that isn't an iceberg....We're unsinkable and that isn't an iceberg....Ahhh....where's that water coming from?"

Offline Steve Fitton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2131
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #52 on: April 18, 2018, 08:12:11 AM »
My Congressman (Rob Wittman VA 1st) actually had his staff call me and talk to me after I sent the AMA email to them.  So at least some politicians are listening.
Steve

Offline Randy Powell

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 9956
  • TreeTop Flyer
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #53 on: April 18, 2018, 10:03:10 AM »
So, you have a contest. Some moron government official (FAA, local leos, whatever) shows up and says you have to stop because of some BS regulation. The participants say screw off and continue the contest. Then....?

I suspect all are arrested and there is a trial. Were I involved, I would insure such a hearing was a public as possible. Contact the media an bring in as many as possible. A bunch of guys not bothering anyone are flying toys and told to stop due to some overreacting government bureaucrat.

That could work, I guess.
Member in good standing of P.I.S.T
(Politically Incorrect Stunt Team)
AMA 67711

Randy Powell

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9179
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #54 on: April 18, 2018, 11:12:59 AM »
The AMA should've stayed in D.C.

   That's a different interesting tale, of course. The entire Muncie move exposed the "institutional psychology" of the entire organization. In that that case, they attempted and probably succeeded (sort of) in finding a small enough pond. This has led them to believe their own delusion, i.e. that they are big players to can direct the results to their liking, when in fact they are going to get steamrolled like the small-town rubes they are, barring  some lucky intervention.

  It's a like a poker game - if you have to look around the table trying to figure out who the sucker might be, guess what - it's you.


    This is far from the first time something like this has happened, and model airplanes were severely threatened by FAA or CAB regulations multiple times in the past. . In every case, the AMA were trying to fix it, were on the cusp of losing (because they have no actual influence on anything) , when some individual with real authority - not associated with the AMA, of course - with some common sense fixed it in a stroke of a pen. I am sure that the AMA took credit for these serendipitous strokes of luck and thus managed to confirm their notion of their extreme importance and influence.

    They have already attempted, or got as close to possible, to claim credit for an individual's solo defense of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft - something they refused to do themselves. If this gets fixed like a bolt from the blue as in previous cases, expect them to crow about their influence "behind the scenes" that made it happen. I think that is probably the only chance we have now - because the AMA is doing everything possible to f*ck it up.

 
      Brett

Offline Fredvon4

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1632
  • Central Texas
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #55 on: April 18, 2018, 12:16:36 PM »
I really appreciate Bret mentioning the ARRL --Amateur Radio Relay league..---as a 45 year long Amateur radio Licensee (KD5NCO) HAM, I became very familiar with all the Federal Communication Commission's rules and each and every new rule proposal and comment periods, processes


The many times I have written MY representatives, the responses lead me to KNOW they have no clue and are happy to have an un-elected regulating Agency to hide behind

Same dynamic with DOT/FAA....

Not sure what actually forced the congress to carve out Hobby aircraft back in 2012    BUT the DOT/FAA deliberately challenged the congressional mandate and they (DOT/FAA) did not get called out by any congressman/woman ....told me a whole lot abut a bunch I already do not trust


I am a HAM
I fly RC and C/l
I am a strong 2nd Amendment gun owning guy

What is truly disturbing is the dummed down populace that does not understand the nature and rules of the non-elected entities like FAA, FCC, DOT, etc can not do a final rule until a PUBLIC comment period

Add in that many in this country is still NOT ON LINE....yes there is a snail mail process also....
BUT with the onerous proposals a few years back by the FCC that would severely impact the Amateur radio community ( about 600,000 licensed HAMs) there were less than 5000 comments

Same in 2012 with the new Drone rules (that obviously impacted all AMA members)  less than 5000 comments and relativity few of us, that did comment, mentioned the Congressional carve out for Hobby model airplanes

If you go back and read the DOT/FAA rational for the new rules...they did a legal and good job of telling Congress to stick it ---and at the time I thought and still do...that their mandate and logic was sound (from their POV) I would have much preferred the Congress would have Bowed up and pushed back hard...they did NOT!


sorry for the lack of links and attributions...I assume MOST on this site reading were and are still invested so already know the 2012 to now history...if not GOOGLE IT!

« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 08:08:02 AM by Fredvon4 »
"A good scare teaches more than good advice"

Fred von Gortler IV

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 #56 on: April 18, 2018, 01:28:56 PM »
The AMA should've stayed in D.C.
[/quote

I guess what I meant was D.C. and the AMA are perfect together. Both are neck deep in the swamp and full of s_ _ _.

Once upon a time, way way back  say from  their inception in 1936 to roughly 1972, they cared about model airplane  builders and model airplane flyers.
 After D.C. , the move to Ralston, Va. and then Muncie.  I assume there was a need for a huge parcel of land after the Navy dumped the NATS in 1973. Don't recall much effort on their part to push back Senator Proxmire aka "creep".

Offline Shug Emery

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1587
  • Whoooo Buddy))))
    • Sean Emery funny guy juggling and stuff
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #57 on: April 18, 2018, 03:18:44 PM »
Reckon the only reason I join AMA is because we seem to need the AMA insurance to enter Stunt contests.
Could PAMPA get us an insurance to cover us for contests? Then all of us CL'ers could skip the AMA.
Shug
Whoooooo Buddy)))))))

Offline Scott Richlen

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1215
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #58 on: April 18, 2018, 04:37:34 PM »
So, I went to their little letter writing site and added this line to the end of the email letter that went to my congrssmen in support of the special rule:
"Clearly,I have absolutely no problem with the FAA regulating, or even banning, aerial drones (eg., quadcopters) since they are not model airplanes and are not a part of the model airplane hobby that I know and love."

 ;D

Offline Dan Berry

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #59 on: April 18, 2018, 05:22:26 PM »
Reckon the only reason I join AMA is because we seem to need the AMA insurance to enter Stunt contests.
Could PAMPA get us an insurance to cover us for contests? Then all of us CL'ers could skip the AMA.
Shug

Reality says that we cannot get flying sites without AMA. There is NO up side to a land owner letting us fly on his or her land and that includes gummint land.

Offline Shug Emery

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1587
  • Whoooo Buddy))))
    • Sean Emery funny guy juggling and stuff
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #60 on: April 18, 2018, 05:34:50 PM »
Reality says that we cannot get flying sites without AMA. There is NO up side to a land owner letting us fly on his or her land and that includes gummint land.
Truth!
Whoooooo Buddy)))))))

Offline wwwarbird

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6737
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #61 on: April 18, 2018, 08:01:56 PM »

 BTW Brett, thanks for offering your insights and opinions with all of this. It's nice to at least hear some sensible conversation, thoughts and information on these subjects since we'll never get any from the AMA. It's really a shame that nothing they hear from the membership will ever make any difference to them. They're now living "their future".
Narrowly averting disaster since 1964! 

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

Online peabody

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2565
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #62 on: April 19, 2018, 09:37:46 AM »
Things evolve.....
Were early Ignition free flighters frowned upon by the rubber powered guys as "not true modelers"?
Were the early Control Line flyers not "pure modelers"?
Were those of us that flew, or tried to fly, the Cox plastic models not "air modelers"...
Are composite planes, be it radio, free flight or control line, not flown by "air modelers"?
How about helicopter enthusiasts?
Quad flyers (not drone flyers, because 95% or so airmodelers fly drones) are a new and different form of airmodeling.
Quad races are amazing, as are the tricks that they are capable of....
As to the fact that they are not AMA members and don't follow rules, how many of us flew in schoolyards? Or joined the AMA when we got our Cox PT 19's?
We evolve

Offline john e. holliday

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 19892
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #63 on: April 19, 2018, 09:49:37 AM »
Yep, I flew in my back yard or at the county lake where Dad worked.  Didn't really know about AMA until my first contest at the old Stanley KS airpark for private planes.  In fact we watched one plane burn to the ground waiting for the fire department to arrived.  No water at the site at that time.  I know I was DQ'd when wheel fell off during qualifying flight. H^^
John E. "DOC" Holliday
10421 West 56th Terrace
Shawnee, KANSAS  66203
AMA 23530

Offline Dane Martin

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2350
  • heli pilot BHOR
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #64 on: April 19, 2018, 10:19:50 AM »
Things evolve.....
Were early Ignition free flighters frowned upon by the rubber powered guys as "not true modelers"?
Were the early Control Line flyers not "pure modelers"?
Were those of us that flew, or tried to fly, the Cox plastic models not "air modelers"...
Are composite planes, be it radio, free flight or control line, not flown by "air modelers"?
How about helicopter enthusiasts?
Quad flyers (not drone flyers, because 95% or so airmodelers fly drones) are a new and different form of airmodeling.
Quad races are amazing, as are the tricks that they are capable of....
As to the fact that they are not AMA members and don't follow rules, how many of us flew in schoolyards? Or joined the AMA when we got our Cox PT 19's?
We evolve

I only disagree with your use of the word airmodeler. I'm thinking a model is something you build. I bought a blade 230S helicopter last weekend because I love flying RC helicopters. It was ready to fly in almost every sense of the word. All I had to do was charge the battery. I assembled nothing. I didn't set up the transmitter. I charged the battery and flew it. That made me a pilot, and, in my opinion, not a modeler.
I am a modeler because of my RC airplane experience and CL experience. I agree that if guys who bought stuff ready to fly would join the AMA and be responsible, none of this would be a discussion. We'd all be good.

Offline Randy Cuberly

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3630
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #65 on: April 19, 2018, 10:28:21 AM »
Things evolve.....
Were early Ignition free flighters frowned upon by the rubber powered guys as "not true modelers"?
Were the early Control Line flyers not "pure modelers"?
Were those of us that flew, or tried to fly, the Cox plastic models not "air modelers"...
Are composite planes, be it radio, free flight or control line, not flown by "air modelers"?
How about helicopter enthusiasts?
Quad flyers (not drone flyers, because 95% or so airmodelers fly drones) are a new and different form of airmodeling.
Quad races are amazing, as are the tricks that they are capable of....
As to the fact that they are not AMA members and don't follow rules, how many of us flew in schoolyards? Or joined the AMA when we got our Cox PT 19's?
We evolve

Well. I would simply ask if any of those early modeling activities posed a threat to full scale aviation or brought the Fed's down on model aviation?   Hmmmm... I guess there is a bit of a difference here Peabody.  If you don't think so you are not paying attention,,,AGAIN!

Randy Cuberly
Randy Cuberly
Tucson, AZ

Online peabody

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2565
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #66 on: April 19, 2018, 10:31:21 AM »
Randy...
I'm of the era when a RC plane flew into a Goodyear blimp.....end of Giant's stadium parking lot use by ANY airmodelers...


Offline Randy Cuberly

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3630
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #67 on: April 19, 2018, 10:53:36 AM »
Randy...
I'm of the era when a RC plane flew into a Goodyear blimp.....end of Giant's stadium parking lot use by ANY airmodelers...

Ahaaa....The beginning of the buy and fly drone era....They just called it R/C!   HB~> HB~> HB~> HB~>

You'll never get it ...Will You?

Randy Cuberly
Randy Cuberly
Tucson, AZ

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9179
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #68 on: April 19, 2018, 10:59:07 AM »
Things evolve.....
Were early Ignition free flighters frowned upon by the rubber powered guys as "not true modelers"?
Were the early Control Line flyers not "pure modelers"?

     Yes to both, in fact, all major clubs existing at the time banned gas models and gas models caused the first Federal involvement. You may or may not be aware that for many decades, every single gas model was required to be registered with the CAB, and were very close to being made illegal by federal regulation.

   
Quote
Quad flyers (not drone flyers, because 95% or so airmodelers fly drones) are a new and different form of airmodeling.
Quad races are amazing, as are the tricks that they are capable of....
As to the fact that they are not AMA members and don't follow rules, how many of us flew in schoolyards? Or joined the AMA when we got our Cox PT 19's?
We evolve

     Who said FPV drones and quadcopters weren't cool and interesting? They are popular for a reason, at least partly precisely *because* they required absolutely no skill to acquire and fly. Is it the AMA charter to sanction and represent, say, Facebook, because it is fun, popular and dangerous? Should a guy sticking a Twister kit together with Elmer's glue in his basement have to provide a statement of his privacy policy or have the kit taken away? Or pass a 60-question test about air navigation laws before he can fly it?

    The problem is that >>DRONES WERE ALWAYS GOING TO BE REGULATED<<, period. I think, and many others think, that they SHOULD be regulated, because their potential for damage and continual examples if irresponsible use. It is a fair argument what sort of regulation and how onerous it should be, that's a reasonable point of debate, but it WILL CERTAINLY HAPPEN in some form.

   The AMA's argument and justification for their position on the Special Rule for Model Aircraft is right and legitimate - for model aviation. Model aviation does have a fairly good record of safety and responsible behavior, although not nearly as good as they like to claim. The caveats are mostly because of the same sort of people currently flying drones infesting the AMA with RTF/ARF buys and fly RC toys in the past.  I think most of us figure the current situation is acceptable if you lump FF/CL/RC/RCArf consumers together and are at least willing to accept this inappropriate or deceptive connection for the greater good.

    What is not acceptable and will screw us al is AMAs course of connecting drones, which ARE GOING TO BE HEAVILY REGULATED WITH 100% CERTAINTY from the first group with the traditional model aviation that SHOULD NOT AND NEEDS NO REGULATION.

    If you do that, you guarantee that the people who have acted responsibly over the years and need no regulation are GOING TO GET REGULATED anyway. And worse, since the "responsible" group who needs no oversight are also the only ones that will pay any attention to the regulation, they are punished for the very same responsibility, while the same drone idiots from the first group will go about their irresponsible ways, leaving the rest of us to pay the price in ever-more-onerous regulations.

    This is the objection, since it has catastrophic effects on people who don't deserve it for having done absolutely nothing, aside from letting the AMA run open-loop for years because we accepted a minor falsehood for the sake of unity.

    Note the irony that we permitted a falsehood (that FF/CL/traditional RC modeling and RC ARF/RTF consumers are somehow connected and similar things that should be logically lumped together for purposes of definition) to be perpetrated "for the better good" by the AMA, and now the same logic is being used for an even more tenuous connection THAT ARE GOING TO HANG US ALL.

      In retrospect, I can see several mistakes made by attempting to "go along" with things that are not true just to be agreeable. Most of us know that it was wrong and disingenuous to permit the RC "consumer" to be lumped with "modelers", but we let it happen anyway. Now the same logic is going to put the rest of us out of business barring some bolt from the blue intervention. 

    I can only speak for myself, but I have to draw the line at this latest and more absurd pack of lies. Lying or "shading the truth" for the last 40 years or so got us in this mess, and I do not wish to compound it by parroting a blatant falsehood as the AMA wants me to.

    Brett
       


Offline Randy Cuberly

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3630
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #69 on: April 19, 2018, 11:43:07 AM »
Face it the Leadership of the AMA has slowly turned the AMA from a "Modeling" service organization into a commercial advertising and sales organization!

That's what they are supporting with every word they publish.  As long as the advertising "CASH" rolls in they couldn't care less about who or what they compromise in the process!

Sounds just like a lot of the "Big Business" organizations that are destroying most of the best things about modern life in America!

Is anyone really surprised?

Randy Cuberly
Randy Cuberly
Tucson, AZ

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 #70 on: April 19, 2018, 12:43:08 PM »
The difference is we BUILD, SWEAT THE DETAILS  and  COVET our models. We blow a gasket over a little hanger rash. Model aircraft builders typically don't engage in risky flight  behavior because they don't want to see their hard work  wind up in  a heap. We act responsibly, but not because the AMA tells us to.
Drone flyers have no such connection. Their next  toy is as close as their checkbook. They'll do anything just for the thrill- like fly over a commercial airline just to take shots- like what recently happened over the skies of Hawaii.

So ,now it's time for rebuttal with stories about knuckleheads who fly R/C and C/L.
 Seen them, too, but they're far and few between.

Offline Vincent Judd

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 225
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #71 on: April 19, 2018, 05:26:38 PM »
Ahaaa....The beginning of the buy and fly drone era....They just called it R/C!   HB~> HB~> HB~> HB~>

You'll never get it ...Will You?

Randy Cuberly

I fly RC and CL, what's your point?

Offline Target

  • C/L Addict
  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #72 on: April 19, 2018, 09:47:18 PM »
I'm of the opinion that Line Of Sight RC is fine; it is the First Person View ability that caused this entire mess.
LOS R/C was chugging along happily until folks decided that FPV needed a better platform.
Now all models are drones in the eyes of the FAA because they are either too stupid or too lazy (or both) to differentiate between LOS and FPV R/C models.
THAT is when the crap hit the fan.

FPV should be the thing that is registered with the FAA, not model aircraft.
Line Of Sight models need not be registered with the FAA; it is a waste of their time, and dilutes where their focus should be!!!!

My 2c.

R,
Target
Regards,
Chris
AMA 5956

Offline Brent Williams

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 660
  • Making America Fly Stunt Again!
    • Fancher Handles - Presented by Brent Williams
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #73 on: April 19, 2018, 09:55:45 PM »
After all of the venting I must ask this question.

Therefore, what?

What acceptable solutions can we organize to achieve?
What course of action must be set upon? 

I am not a current AMA member, but I feel like it's basically extortion to demand a $75 AMA membership if I want to attend any big out of state contest.  What do I get out of my yearly $75 protection racket fee?  A nifty number on my wings and some hope that AMA will hopefully step in and cover me in the event there is a mishap (apparently after my homeowners insurance is maxed out). 

Based on the above discussion, (and many previous discussions), as a community we haven't received the protective cover that we hoped for.  Seems much like the "protection" the Mob offered businesses.  Pay up or something bad might happen.   All of you paid into the protection racket, but it seems the gangsters still burned down the organization.
Laser-cut, "Ted Fancher Precision-Pro" Hard Point Handle Kits are available again.  PM for info.
https://stunthanger.com/smf/brent-williams'-fancher-handles-and-cl-parts/ted-fancher's-precision-pro-handle-kit-by-brent-williams-information/

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9179
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #74 on: April 19, 2018, 11:39:36 PM »
After all of the venting I must ask this question.

Therefore, what?

What acceptable solutions can we organize to achieve?
What course of action must be set upon? 


   To be honest, I don't know. I freely admit that I am just venting, I don't see a solution that is within our control - which is *why* I am venting!

    Brett

Offline Randy Cuberly

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3630
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #75 on: April 20, 2018, 12:23:23 AM »
I fly RC and CL, what's your point?

I think that my point is obvious.  Right or wrong, I believe that the beginning of the real problem era for government control over modeling started with the beginning of the "Buy and Fly" era of RC.  That's when the large number of people who were not really interested in "Modeling" but more likely simply the "TOY syndrome" of playing with a toy airplane, came into the hobby.  Most had very little invested in the modeling activity beyond a simple interest in playing with something new,  There fore many had no commitment to safety or to actually learning about anything beyond twiddling the knobs to see what the thing would do.  Once that curiosity was satisfied they moved on to something else.  No commitment and no real interest means most were not careful about their habits toward other modelers or other people.  Hence Brett's statements about flying over other people etc.!
That kind of activity often leaves a wake of problems that attracts attention from hosts of "Do Gooders" that are incensed about the entire activity and immediately set about to "BAN" or rigidly control it!

The AMA at one time had an intense interest in trying to prevent such activity, now however they have embraced it and are simply trying to cash in on it financially!

Hence...as stated several times "It will be heavily controlled or banned".  That's precisely what is happening and it looks like all of modeling including the "innocent" and types of modeling activities that could not even possibly be involved will be included in the MIX!

Plain enough for you!

Please understand I'm not indicting all RC modelers or all of any particular group.  But those groups that fly RC especially "Drones" most easily lend themselves to that flawed behavior!
I think some past activities plainly confirm that statement!

Randy Cuberly
Randy Cuberly
Tucson, AZ

Offline katana

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Ensign
  • **
  • Posts: 31
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #76 on: April 20, 2018, 03:44:08 AM »
I just read the whole thread and as a European we have the same problems with - in particular - Drones, not so much RC aircraft. But was surprised regarding the extent of your regulation covering 'model aircraft'. I also read the FAA regulations (noted above) pertaining to same and whilst much mention is made of ' unmanned aircraft, 400ft ht. restrictions, line of sight etc these are all squarely directed at FF (free flight) RC, rockets and Drones and is perfectly understandable.

There was one reference I noted that should be seized upon by the C/L fraternity - models having no direct control by the pilot as applied to the definition of a UAS. Control Line clearly has a DIRECT controlling link to the aircraft flown, no different to a pilot being sat in the plane if it was plainly tethered to the ground.

This doesn't help the FF, RC or drone flyers but thats their own fight......... C/L has a get out clause - EXPLOIT IT!

Offline Scott Richlen

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1215
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #77 on: April 20, 2018, 08:28:45 AM »
Brett:

Does anyone know the guy who sued FAA when AMA sat on their hands?  Is there any chance we could get him to help us create an insurance rider for CL that we could each add to our home-owners?  The goal would be that as a PAMPA member you would be able to show the insurance rider.  We then could separate from AMA based on having the insurance to cover contests, flying sites, etc.

Maybe this is a dumb idea and if not, still a long shot, but what else is there?

Scott

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9179
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #78 on: April 20, 2018, 10:31:13 AM »
Brett:

Does anyone know the guy who sued FAA when AMA sat on their hands?  Is there any chance we could get him to help us create an insurance rider for CL that we could each add to our home-owners?  The goal would be that as a PAMPA member you would be able to show the insurance rider.  We then could separate from AMA based on having the insurance to cover contests, flying sites, etc.

      Separating from the AMA at this point will not solve the regulation issue. Maybe we could have headed it off 30 years ago when "model aviation" began to turn into "model purchasing". But now, we would be a brand-new entity with no connections in Washington, a few thousand people at the very most. And, no benefit of the AMA's 90-year history of lying about the myth of "youth education". We would appear exactly as we are - a tiny group of middle-aged men playing with toy airplanes (backwards toy airplanes that most would consider obsolete and virtually no one has seen or understands or has ever heard of) in various soybean fields. Virtually no one even knows such an activity exists, therefore, virtually no one would be impacted if it disappeared. No one is going to carve out special treatment for 1000 people in a country of 370,000,000.

    And before the village idiot rushes to point it out - the same equation applies if it is 5000 or 10,000 people.

     Brett

Offline wwwarbird

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6737
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #79 on: April 20, 2018, 07:59:18 PM »
    I freely admit that I am just venting, I don't see a solution that is within our control - which is *why* I am venting!

    Brett

 Same here, and it does suck. My angst comes from thinking of all the years I fed the AMA money, for nothing really. In the end my only satisfaction is knowing that they will never see another nickel from me. GRRR.
Narrowly averting disaster since 1964! 

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

Offline wwwarbird

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6737
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #80 on: April 20, 2018, 08:05:25 PM »
      Separating from the AMA at this point will not solve the regulation issue. Maybe we could have headed it off 30 years ago when "model aviation" began to turn into "model purchasing". But now, we would be a brand-new entity with no connections in Washington, a few thousand people at the very most. And, no benefit of the AMA's 90-year history of lying about the myth of "youth education". We would appear exactly as we are - a tiny group of middle-aged men playing with toy airplanes (backwards toy airplanes that most would consider obsolete and virtually no one has seen or understands or has ever heard of) in various soybean fields. Virtually no one even knows such an activity exists, therefore, virtually no one would be impacted if it disappeared. No one is going to carve out special treatment for 1000 people in a country of 370,000,000.

    And before the village idiot rushes to point it out - the same equation applies if it is 5000 or 10,000 people.

     Brett

 Right on again Brett, pretty much the whole situation in a nutshell. 
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 #81 on: April 20, 2018, 11:57:32 PM »
What is vexing me so at this juncture is that I, if I am to begin attending contests as a participant, need to get a AMA membership or I cannot play in the reindeer games.  So I must acquire an AMA membership so I may compete in an activity which the AMA is utterly refusing to defend from government overreach, which means that the enrolment fee is not far removed from an extortion fee.

Just my take on it.

Gary
Profanity is the crutch of the illiterate mind

Offline Randy Cuberly

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3630
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #82 on: April 21, 2018, 12:33:34 AM »
What is vexing me so at this juncture is that I, if I am to begin attending contests as a participant, need to get a AMA membership or I cannot play in the reindeer games.  So I must acquire an AMA membership so I may compete in an activity which the AMA is utterly refusing to defend from government overreach, which means that the enrolment fee is not far removed from an extortion fee.

Just my take on it.

Gary

Welcome to the Extorted Crowd!  Bear in mind that some of us poor "dummies" have been paying the "extortion money" to play in the Reindeer Games for over 65 years!  So, don't feel alone.  You're in good company!

Randy Cuberly
Randy Cuberly
Tucson, AZ

Offline Perry Rose

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 838
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #83 on: April 21, 2018, 05:51:25 AM »

The mistake the AMA made was to not understand how to deal with the FAA. The FAA doesn't like to make rules they like to approve the rules you make.As a rule. What the AMA should have done is make up the rules and guidance, present them to the FAA for approval, have a back and forth until it fits into the FAA regs and call it a day. Now it may not be too late but it will be a lot harder as no one wants to eat crow.
I wouldn't take her to a dog fight even if she had a chance to win.
The worst part of growing old is remembering when you were young.

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9179
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #84 on: April 21, 2018, 06:35:26 PM »
The mistake the AMA made was to not understand how to deal with the FAA. The FAA doesn't like to make rules they like to approve the rules you make.As a rule. What the AMA should have done is make up the rules and guidance, present them to the FAA for approval, have a back and forth until it fits into the FAA regs and call it a day. Now it may not be too late but it will be a lot harder as no one wants to eat crow.

   Maybe, but the general public, other TLAs, and politicians are clamoring for drone regulation (because of their obvious record of dangerous and irresponsible behavior). And it's much easier for the FAA to just make a blanket "law", and not bother with the distinctions like a "CBO" and certainly not micro-segments like CL. Particularly when the CBO is both lying about the record, and trying to defeat the entire concept of drone regulation, which is CERTAIN TO HAPPEN. They cannot win that one.

    The AMA appears to think they can defeat the entire effort by throwing everything in the pot, and they are - sadly for our purposes - deluded.

    Brett

Offline Jim Catevenis

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 72
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #85 on: April 23, 2018, 03:15:19 PM »
Well, stated Brett!  Brett Buck for AMA President!

Jim Catevenis
JCAT

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 862
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #86 on: April 23, 2018, 03:31:57 PM »
   I got this, too. This was my response:

Nailed it.  You are usually so reserved.  You need to get fired up more often!  How do we put the toothpaste back in the tube?  Not only have the ARF's killed the hobby shops, they are about to kill the hobby.
AMA 15382

If it is not broke, don't fix it.

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 862
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #87 on: April 23, 2018, 04:03:20 PM »
How does this affect CL?  A few years back when all of this started I was not flying so I only paid attention as it related to drones.  I got one for Christmas and wanted to know if I would be able to use it.  The regulations seemed a bit weird but didn't affect me much.
From what I am reading here it seems like CL will be affected and it clearly was not before.  No one with a clear thought process can not see the dangers associated with FPV and drones, especially those with GPS and the larger RC ARF's.  Far too easy to turn them into delivery systems.    The AMA has become the ADA (American Drone Association) in my opinion.  Model Aviation is all about drones now.  CL gets a page or two in the back sometimes, maybe.

So, other than the fact that many of us, myself included fly RC as well, how does this affect us?
AMA 15382

If it is not broke, don't fix it.

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9179
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #88 on: April 23, 2018, 04:38:45 PM »
How does this affect CL?

   By accident, and entirely incidentally. If the Special Rule For Model Aircraft is eliminated, the FAA will almost certainly subject us to the same thing they plan to subject drone and RC fliers - no one knows for sure what that will be. It was, until about September of last year, "registration". The AMA had insisted that it was not necessary for CL and FF (and that may well have been the intent) but there is nothing in the FAA documentation that says that, and several anecdotal statements from the FAA that we *do* have to register (as above). As far as I know almost no one actually did that. The variations I have heard are registration, a license regime including a written test, minimum requirements for equipment (like a particular brand of Geofencing software and an up-to-date geofence database), possibly test requirements for the equipment, and things like that.

   I expect we could pass a test (even if it is completely inapplicable), pay a license fee, and register. I think we are going to have a real problem loading the geofencing software and database, and passing the equipment test (if any). Note that any "operator" will have to be above 16. Essentially, it is extending the full-scale piloting and aircraft requirements to everything that goes in the air.

   One thing I haven't heard is how they are going to treat model rocketry. The vast majority of them are above 5.5 ounces and they go in the air, so, hypothetically included, but I haven't heard a peep out of the NAR or even a mention of the issue.

    Brett

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 862
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #89 on: April 23, 2018, 04:55:22 PM »
   By accident, and entirely incidentally. If the Special Rule For Model Aircraft is eliminated, the FAA will almost certainly subject us to the same thing they plan to subject drone and RC fliers - no one knows for sure what that will be.

Wow, that would be like having to get a commercial drivers license to pull you groceries into the house on a little red wagon.  I will join the chorus or ignored voices and write my congressman as well.

Ken
AMA 15382

If it is not broke, don't fix it.

Offline Mike Griffin

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1353
  • Commander Billy Mitchell Senior Squadron, CAP
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #90 on: April 23, 2018, 07:41:23 PM »
   By accident, and entirely incidentally. If the Special Rule For Model Aircraft is eliminated, the FAA will almost certainly subject us to the same thing they plan to subject drone and RC fliers - no one knows for sure what that will be. It was, until about September of last year, "registration". The AMA had insisted that it was not necessary for CL and FF (and that may well have been the intent) but there is nothing in the FAA documentation that says that, and several anecdotal statements from the FAA that we *do* have to register (as above). As far as I know almost no one actually did that. The variations I have heard are registration, a license regime including a written test, minimum requirements for equipment (like a particular brand of Geofencing software and an up-to-date geofence database), possibly test requirements for the equipment, and things like that.

   I expect we could pass a test (even if it is completely inapplicable), pay a license fee, and register. I think we are going to have a real problem loading the geofencing software and database, and passing the equipment test (if any). Note that any "operator" will have to be above 16. Essentially, it is extending the full-scale piloting and aircraft requirements to everything that goes in the air.

   One thing I haven't heard is how they are going to treat model rocketry. The vast majority of them are above 5.5 ounces and they go in the air, so, hypothetically included, but I haven't heard a peep out of the NAR or even a mention of the issue.

    Brett


    Brett,
You bring up a interesting point with this.  I am a member of The Civil Air Patrol and one of the three main missions of CAP is Aerospace Education.  We have a huge model rocket program with the Cadets and this causes me concern.  We really dont need this kind of crap to have to deal with. 

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 Target

  • C/L Addict
  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #91 on: April 23, 2018, 07:50:42 PM »
The kicker is-

The entire registration process will be a huge waste of time and effort by the FAA. They won't accomplish a thing.
No problems with FPV Multi-Rotor pilots will be fixed by any of this. Sort of like gun control for law abiding citizens (I don't own a gun, BTW, but what they are doing is not as effective as they hope, so I think it is also a waste of time, pretty much).

Again, all of this wasted registration effort should be focused on the FPV gear, in my opinion, at the point of sale. That way the traditional facets of modeling are not much effected and the cool kids with the FPV toys have to be cataloged by the RF gear they use.

I'm sure there could be some problem with this plan, but it applies the load where it needs to be, and not where it hasn't been and shouldn't be.

R,
Target
« Last Edit: April 24, 2018, 11:14:00 PM by Target »
Regards,
Chris
AMA 5956

Online Dan McEntee

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2962
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #92 on: April 23, 2018, 10:08:41 PM »
  Are there any old CBer's out there amongst the old farts?? Remember when the FCC decided that they needed to have all of us have a voice license? The offices were overwhelmed with applications so they decided to just eliminate that license. I had (and still have somewhere) my non-voice license for flying R/C sailplanes, and my voice license for my CB radio in my '65 Dodge window van and they both cost me 25 bucks each for 5 years! I have finally forgotten my call letters. The FAA doesn't realize what it may be getting into and asking for. There have already been reports where peoples drones have been recovered from accident scenes with their registration number intact, and local authorities were told by the FAA that they had no way of tracking the number. I would tend to believe that since the original registration was done by email and your certificate was emailed back to you for you to print out yourself! I say, just ignore them. They can't bust us all! I'll claim I am protected by the ex post facto provisions in the Constitution. It wasn't illegal to fly my rubber powered models as a kid ( and some of THOSE weighed over the limit!) so it shouldn't be illegal 50 years after that fact now! They can have my control line handle and rubber winder when they can pry it out of my dead, cold hands!
  Ban the violent video games that are training and brain washing all of these mass shooters first!
  Type at you later,
  Dan McEntee
AMA 28784
EAA  1038824
AMA 480405 (American Motorcyclist Association)

Offline Perry Rose

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 838
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #93 on: April 24, 2018, 05:21:33 AM »
I read somewhere that the FAA considers c/l planes to be "manned aircraft"  and that separated c/l from r/c and out of the rule. And where is PAMPA on this?
I wouldn't take her to a dog fight even if she had a chance to win.
The worst part of growing old is remembering when you were young.

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9179
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #94 on: April 24, 2018, 11:40:12 AM »
The kicker is-

The entire registration process will be a huge waste of time and effort by the FAA. They won't accomplish a thing.
No problems with FPV Multi-Rotor pilots will be fixed by any of this. Sort f like gun control for law abiding citizens (I don't own a gun, BTW, but what they are doing is not as effective as they hope, so I think it is also a waste of time, pretty much).

   Of course, that's the first rule of government regulation - the only people who will pay attention to the regulations are those who don't need it. That is trumped by the zeroth rule of government regulation  - we need to be seen to do something whether it is effective or not. The only remedy government ever undertakes is to *add* regulation, because all that is necessary is that they be seen doing something, rather than actually resolving any problem.

 Problems are rarely if ever solved by additional regulation, problems are solved by individuals, families, and local groups changing societal behavior, not by imposing laws or "laws" from without. This is the essential fallacy of having these extraneous, interstitial, TLAs between you and your representatives. It would be literally impossible for congress to spew out regulations by the thousands, and it would never be undertaken in the first place, because that means that some easily identified individual would have to go on the record as voting for them - meaning that their constituents would be able to take out their vengeance for it at the next election.   *That was an intentional feature of the formation of the Federal government*, it was SUPPOSED TO BE IMPOSSIBLE, by design.

     Some bunch of idiots, starting in earnest in about 1933, took advantage of the dire state of the economy and desperation of the individual citizen to invent a bunch of new TLAs, all intended to spew regulation while insulating the politicians from the consequences. It was one of the first clear invocations of "never let a crisis go to waste", i.e. it's really easy to take advantage of people when they are panicking. In fact, it proved so successful (from their perspective) that they managed to greatly extend the crisis until another, even bigger crisis, came along (World War II). Even now there are plenty of people who think that the New Dealers saved the country from a terrible fate - rather than what they actually did, which was deepen and extend the depression to their own advantage, while saddling the country with these unelected functionaries and lobbiests who are the real shadow rulers, while the elected officials are relegated to the role of figureheads.

    Now we are fully and completely infested with this fundamentally unAmerican and unconstitutional arrangement. If someone even pays lip service to reducing it, they are bitterly attacked from both sides (as we see every day in the news). Note that this is after only a minor *suggestion* that this arrangement be dismantled, no real effective action to that end.

    It also has the net effect of removing responsibility for anti-social behavior from individuals - no one is ever just a bad person, any unfortunate outcomes can easily be attributed to lack of proper regulatory direction, not that that individual person did wrong. And of course solved by adding additional regulation. So it has an appeal for the uninformed person with little concept of liberty.

   This spew of regulations is the basic tyranny of the current system. It is absolutely and completely in everyone in the federal government's interest to perpetuate the crises (if not todays, there will be another tomorrow, real or imagined), and to tout more regulation as the cure, rather than the cause.

    The AMA might see the first law, and maybe could even articulate it that way - but they are disregarding the zeroth law. We are a minor example in the larger scheme of things, but it is illustrative of the general problem.

    Brett

   

Online phil c

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1910
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #95 on: April 24, 2018, 06:23:54 PM »
Guess I'll have to register my yo-yo collection.  I'll engrave the id # on each one and fly them on the sidewalk of the local airport terminal.
phil Cartier

Offline Randy Cuberly

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3630
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #96 on: April 24, 2018, 06:39:49 PM »
The simple and probably only, solution to this problem is to simply ignore it!  If they arrest us all then we'll have a terrific opportunity for a voice in the National News!

12,000 model airplane fliers arrested yesterday by the FAA!  Imagine that!

Randy Cuberly
Randy Cuberly
Tucson, AZ

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9179
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #97 on: April 25, 2018, 10:00:08 AM »
The simple and probably only, solution to this problem is to simply ignore it!  If they arrest us all then we'll have a terrific opportunity for a voice in the National News!

12,000 model airplane fliers arrested yesterday by the FAA!  Imagine that!

   It's more like a local complains about "noise" to the police, they show up at the site with their "FAA Guide To Drone Regulation for Law Enforcement Officials", they ask if you are registered and have your license, you say no, they take your stuff and nothing else happens and no one cares or even knows about it. 12,000 separate times, all anonymously.

     Brett

Offline Steve Thompson

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 121
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #98 on: April 25, 2018, 10:38:43 AM »
Hah!  They'll have to pry my handle out of my clenched, shaking, recently taze'd fingers...

Offline jim ballard

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 98
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #99 on: April 25, 2018, 11:59:00 AM »
Ok, I came across this thread last week and began to wonder if the FAA was really going to require C/L flyers to register their models. I spent several hours in the UAS or sUAS section of the FAA website with no luck to answer that specific question. I also spent quite a bit of time on the AMA site where I found that the AMA says C/L and FF were exempt from registration. So...I sent a question to the FAA UAS help email address and here is the result.

Here is the question I sent:

"I have a simple question. Are control line (tethered) model aircraft exempt from FAA UAS registration.

Thank you for your time."


And here is the answer I got a week later:

"Any drone operated outside (tethered or non-tethered) needs to be registered.  Registration may be completed at https://faadronezone.faa.gov/#/."


"Thank you for contacting the FAA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Support Center."



FWIW, I agree with what's been said in this thread. I don't think the AMA OR the FAA could find their butts with both hands.
Tempting fate and gravity one more time....

Jim Ballard
Blackwell, TX
AMA 62811


Tags: