stunthanger.com

General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Vincent Judd on April 15, 2018, 06:03:02 PM

Title: Here we go again
Post by: Vincent Judd 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.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Paul Walker on April 15, 2018, 07:50:16 PM
Very well said Brett. Couldn't agree more!
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Mike Keville 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.

Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Mike Keville 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?
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Steve Fitton on April 15, 2018, 09:09:35 PM
Time to drain the AMA swamp.  Brett for president.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: wwwarbird 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck 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
   
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Mike Griffin 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Jim Svitko 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.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Dane Martin 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.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Skip Chernoff 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Dave_Trible 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?
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Dane Martin 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Russell Shaffer 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Mike Griffin 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Jim Kraft 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.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Eric Viglione 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.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Serge_Krauss 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Bob Heywood 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.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Vincent Judd 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. 



Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Juan Valentin 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Fredvon4 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: peabody 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,,,,,
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Jim Svitko 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? 
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Vincent Judd 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.

Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Jim Svitko 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.


Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: wwwarbird 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.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Gary Dowler 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
Title: More of the same...
Post by: Brett Buck 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Frank Imbriaco 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.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Scott Richlen 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: JoeJust 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Dane Martin 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.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Ted Fancher 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Dane Martin 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.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Randy Cuberly 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

 
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Steve Helmick 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Target 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: john e. holliday 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Steve Thompson 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. 
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: wwwarbird 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.

Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Frank Imbriaco on April 18, 2018, 04:53:30 AM
The AMA should've stayed in D.C.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Scott Richlen 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?"
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Steve Fitton 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.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Randy Powell 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.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Fredvon4 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!

Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Frank Imbriaco 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".
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Shug Emery 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Scott Richlen 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Dan Berry 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.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Shug Emery 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!
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: wwwarbird 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".
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: peabody 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: john e. holliday 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^^
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Dane Martin 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.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Randy Cuberly 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: peabody 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...

Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Randy Cuberly 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck 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
       

Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Randy Cuberly 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Frank Imbriaco 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.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Vincent Judd 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?
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Target 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brent Williams 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.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Randy Cuberly 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: katana 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!
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Scott Richlen 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: wwwarbird 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.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: wwwarbird 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. 
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Gary Dowler 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Randy Cuberly 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Perry Rose 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.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Jim Catevenis on April 23, 2018, 03:15:19 PM
Well, stated Brett!  Brett Buck for AMA President!

Jim Catevenis
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Ken Culbertson 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.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Ken Culbertson 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?
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Ken Culbertson 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Mike Griffin 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Target 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Dan McEntee 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Perry Rose 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?
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck 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

   
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: phil c 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.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Randy Cuberly 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck 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
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Steve Thompson 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...
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: jim ballard 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.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Bill Johnson on April 25, 2018, 12:24:41 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

I agree completely, it may come to that. I'm sure you are familiar with Thoreau's "On the duty of civil disobedience"...
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Fredvon4 on April 25, 2018, 01:03:02 PM
I kind of doubt the DOT/FAA would swoop down on the NATs


Way back I paid and got refunded the $5 to register...got me a FAA number card

I asked and then educated my Local Sherrif and City police becaus the "how to Guide" they got was very vague and confusing.

As far as I know I am the ONLY ONE citizen in Lampasas county who fly's a Model airplane in the country....Ther are a few R/C guys who belong to a club in another county

With the FAA "How too guide" the local LEOs got and my attempt to educate the Chief of Police and Sheriff...combined with my in the wallet "License" I have no fear

I lamented and pontificated long and loud years ago that the AMA was full of BS claiming Control line was exempted... I have read and re-read every word, sentence, and paragraph of the DOT/FAA ruling.....there are NO exemptions -----excepting the very light micro stuff

I also took the time to read every open public comment and then the DOT/FAA responses....

I suggest a re-read of the final ruling and how they side stepped the Congressional carve out in 336.....They claimed a jurisdictional authority that THE CONGRESS demanded THEY (FAA) manage and cited several precedence....  IMO their argument FOR their decision will pass SCOTUS scrutiny

Brett has it correct ----the problem here is we have zero control over the various government agencies that make rules (de-facto law) and they were given the power to prosecute, jail, and fine citizens....That the Supreme Court upholds these actions, by an un-elected agency, should tell you a lot about how contemptuous they all have of the US Constitution

Did you know that IRS has a SWAT division...so does Texas Parks and Wildlife....HUMMMMM?

You/We no longer have unfettered Free Speech
Nor Gun Rights
Nor many hobbies or vocations...Model airplanes, Ham radio, tinkering on cars, flying real airplanes, etc

And the true evil is just as Brett suggested....the rules always seem to be additive and restrictive mostly punishing Law Abiding citizens who will comply, and have little or no evidence of ever preventing the bad actors from doing more evil and harm....

Very few of the public is even aware that we all (as long as NOT PROHIBITED) can legally buy and shoot a M2 heavy barrel 50 cal machine gun or  Tommy Gun but they want to restrict or out law a lowly M16 5.56mm type rifle....... over 100 million already in law abiding citizens possession for what ever desire the citizen had for buying the thing

Free speech
Hobbies
Self defense Right To Carry and Bear Arms

We are all hostage to public Moral Outrage and Congressional "We Must Do Something" mentality......

Yes also venting.....not much we can do short a constitutional amendments...term limits and making every, and I mean EVERY, congressman be subject to the rules and laws they make
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Perry Rose on April 25, 2018, 01:13:59 PM
Has anyone asked about people that hold valid FAA pilot certificates? It seems to me those people should be exempt from any "testing".
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: john e. holliday on April 26, 2018, 09:34:09 AM
I think( i know it is some thing I seldom do) I would ask them what is a drone?   hen let them explain how a control line airplane can be considered a drone.   Also with my planes I would ask if who ever it is that I'm fouling up their theater size TV or too noising let them check my planes again.  Only time I have been asked to depart  school parking lot was many years ago when testing a new Rat Racer.   The people on the other side of the road booed the officer as he left.  City ordinance prohibits models flying on school properties. HB~>
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Chad Hill on April 26, 2018, 11:23:45 AM
Has anyone asked about people that hold valid FAA pilot certificates? It seems to me those people should be exempt from any "testing".

But, as far as I know, none of the current FAA airman exams deal with model aircraft or drone regs. Don't see how pilot certification gets you off the hook for that.

Furthermore, my guess is that those with valid FAA pilot certificates would suffer the greatest for not complying with any directive that mandates model airplane registration. Certificate suspension, revocation, fines, etc. Ignorance of the law is never a valid excuse with the FAA. If it becomes clear that CL does not qualify for an exemption, I would not be surprised to see the FAA conducting spot checks at our NATS events this July.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Fredvon4 on April 26, 2018, 02:34:02 PM
I think the most dastardly and chilling fact that is ANY FEDERAL conviction is a Felony by definition
 And under Federal Law any Felony conviction significantly limits your many other Constitutional rights...voting, guns...loss with OUT compensation of your property

Around here, in Rural Lampasas, I frequently have to caution many neighbors to NOT Shoot Drones out of the sky with a shot gun.....   yes there me be a few that are true toys from Wally World...but too many these days have legitimate use and legal to use and legal to over fly your property

Shooting a legitimate Sheriffs department, or Realtor, or Power company, or Wildlife survey,  drone....approaching $30,000 cost is going to invoke a investigation, and you Might be criminally or civilly liable

 I see the drone issue and the mandate of the DOT and FAA in two ways.....maybe three

There is a great need for them of many commercial and other legit uses
They are a cool toy....no doubt I own 2 of the lesser cost versions...no FPV....I have a lot of fun aggravating my dog with them

 I personally agree with congress mandating DOT/FAA "do Something" because of the potential for great harm

They have a great potential to do very bad harm from an ass hole, nut case, or terrorist POV

but we all must be mindful of the ideas Brett and I are stating... with this type Un elected (entity) rule making we are powerless to much more than try to comply and stay out of trouble...trouble we as individuals can not afford..... I have a second amendment issue and my Lawyer is $750 an hour....and I am going to loose

Ask your insurance agent if you are covered, ask the AMA if they will defend you...the answer in both cases is NO for any FEDERAL CRIME YOU conduct



Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Randy Cuberly on April 27, 2018, 01:45:36 AM
I think the most dastardly and chilling fact that is ANY FEDERAL conviction is a Felony by definition
 And under Federal Law any Felony conviction significantly limits your many other Constitutional rights...voting, guns...loss with OUT compensation of your property

Around here, in Rural Lampasas, I frequently have to caution many neighbors to NOT Shoot Drones out of the sky with a shot gun.....   yes there me be a few that are true toys from Wally World...but too many these days have legitimate use and legal to use and legal to over fly your property

Shooting a legitimate Sheriffs department, or Realtor, or Power company, or Wildlife survey,  drone....approaching $30,000 cost is going to invoke a investigation, and you Might be criminally or civilly liable

 I see the drone issue and the mandate of the DOT and FAA in two ways.....maybe three

There is a great need for them of many commercial and other legit uses
They are a cool toy....no doubt I own 2 of the lesser cost versions...no FPV....I have a lot of fun aggravating my dog with them

 I personally agree with congress mandating DOT/FAA "do Something" because of the potential for great harm

They have a great potential to do very bad harm from an ass hole, nut case, or terrorist POV

but we all must be mindful of the ideas Brett and I are stating... with this type Un elected (entity) rule making we are powerless to much more than try to comply and stay out of trouble...trouble we as individuals can not afford..... I have a second amendment issue and my Lawyer is $750 an hour....and I am going to loose

Ask your insurance agent if you are covered, ask the AMA if they will defend you...the answer in both cases is NO for any FEDERAL CRIME YOU conduct

So you're saying give up and conform to their stupidity and jack booted nonsense!  They'll have to shoot me first.
I'm too old and tired to play their game!  I can, if necessary, at least make them sorry!

There is a way to stop this kind of nonsense...Join the effort for the Convention of States and let's get rid of this crap and a lot of the politicians that tolerate and proliferate it.  Take back the US Constitution!

Support President Trump's mandate to "Kill the Deep State"!

Randy Cuberly
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Fredvon4 on April 27, 2018, 09:01:40 AM
Randy I belong to NOW a long list of Rights groups and could not agree with you more....well said sir
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: jim ballard on April 27, 2018, 12:13:04 PM
I think( i know it is some thing I seldom do) I would ask them what is a drone?   hen let them explain how a control line airplane can be considered a drone.   Also with my planes I would ask if who ever it is that I'm fouling up their theater size TV or too noising let them check my planes again.  Only time I have been asked to depart  school parking lot was many years ago when testing a new Rat Racer.   The people on the other side of the road booed the officer as he left.  City ordinance prohibits models flying on school properties. HB~>

I've done just that Doc. We'll see what they say. Probably just another generic blanket answer....
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Ken Culbertson on April 27, 2018, 12:16:48 PM
So you're saying give up and conform to their stupidity and jack booted nonsense!  They'll have to shoot me first.
I'm too old and tired to play their game!  I can, if necessary, at least make them sorry!

There is a way to stop this kind of nonsense...Join the effort for the Convention of States and let's get rid of this crap and a lot of the politicians that tolerate and proliferate it.  Take back the US Constitution!

Support President Trump's mandate to "Kill the Deep State"!

Randy Cuberly

Right on - we MAY fact not be able to do anything about it but if we don't try then we KNOW we will not be able to do anything about it!

One post said that they would not raid the NATS.  Ever belong to a HOA?  Give a pinhead a stupid regulation and they will do back flips to show you who is in charge.  My guess is that the AMA wouldn't have the guts to hold it in direct defiance of the regulations.  I wrote my congressman and I am going to try and do the same at the FAA explaining how this stupid approach would make it a federal crime for a 10 year old to throw a paper airplane.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Vincent Judd on April 27, 2018, 02:52:26 PM
Just grabbed this off of the AMA website.  I think it's today's news, but please forgive me if it's not.  I don't see a date on this piece of information.

Sounds like things are heading in the right direction for us, but you know how quickly that could change.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/writecongress.aspx
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Fred Underwood on April 27, 2018, 03:39:51 PM
https://woodall.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/house-passed-five-year-faa-reauthorization-act-delivers-win-local

This is today's news and may help to confirm the date of the AMA post.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Ken Culbertson on April 27, 2018, 03:43:18 PM
Just grabbed this off of the AMA website.  I think it's today's news, but please forgive me if it's not.  I don't see a date on this piece of information.

Sounds like things are heading in the right direction for us, but you know how quickly that could change.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/writecongress.aspx

Great news.  I just wish they would have told us what the "things that concerned them" were.  Sort of difficult to call your Senator and say "We don't like something in this bill - we don't know what it is but please fix it"
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Vincent Judd on April 27, 2018, 03:45:27 PM
Great news.  I just wish they would have told us what the "things that concerned them" were.  Sort of difficult to call your Senator and say "We don't like something in this bill - we don't know what it is but please fix it"

So true.  Geez, if you want us to fight for something, give us some damn details.  Idiots.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Randy Cuberly on April 27, 2018, 04:05:25 PM
Hmmmmmm...Sounds like they know that it isn't going to fly and just want to appease the masses with more meaningless tripe!  Seems like they do a lot of that lately.

The Senate still has to do their part and lately that bunch of Fat Axx do nothing idiots haven't done a thing except count their Graft money!

Besides we all know by now that the FAA and other non-elected organizations don't pay any attention to what Congress does!

They'll just come up with some more Lawer-ese jargon that says what they want in a different way and continue with their scheme to do whatever they want!

Ignore the morons.

Randy Cuberly
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Air Ministry . on April 27, 2018, 07:45:52 PM
I agree completely, it may come to that. I'm sure you are familiar with Thoreau's "On the duty of civil disobedience"...

Get Bob Hunt to Run for PRESIDENT .  S?P
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck on April 27, 2018, 07:53:55 PM
Get Bob Hunt to Run for PRESIDENT .  S?P

  I think he's smart enough to know better.

    Brett
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Randy Cuberly on April 27, 2018, 11:44:03 PM
  I think he's smart enough to know better.

    Brett

Absolutely.  One of the problems with positions in places like the AMA is that most of the "Good" guys are simply not interested in beating their head against such an organization!  They're smart enough to realize that such an organization is too far gone into politics to be worth the battle.

Randy Cuberly
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Serge_Krauss on April 28, 2018, 12:01:55 AM
I'm kinda "hoping against hope" that this initially informative thread won't sink the rest of the way into partisan politics. I've communicated the factual concerns to my club via our business meeting and newsletter, including a link to this thread.
SK
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Gary Dowler on April 28, 2018, 12:28:49 AM
I'm kinda "hoping against hope" that this initially informative thread won't sink the rest of the way into partisan politics. I've communicated the factual concerns to my club via our business meeting and newsletter, including a link to this thread.
SK
As unpleasant as aspects of the conversation may be, partisan politics must occasionally be a part of such discussions as they are often the very root of the problem.   The only way change will ever be affected is to bring such things to the fore front, lest we collectively submerge our craniums beneath the finely graduated silica and just hope for the best.

Gary
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Andre Ming on April 28, 2018, 07:03:19 AM
"As unpleasant as aspects of the conversation may be, partisan politics must occasionally be a part of such discussions as they are often the very root of the problem."

Exactly! Unaccountable "Agencies", "Departments Of", etc, etc, is WHY we're in some of the messes we're in as a Nation. This topic we're discussing would not be a topic IF the FAA hadn't over-reached into a HOBBY of all things.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Bob Hunt on April 28, 2018, 07:26:12 AM
Get Bob Hunt to Run for PRESIDENT .  S?P

Okay, Matt, this is an official question (and I think many here really want to know the answer to this...). Are you high?  ;D

Bob Hunt
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Perry Rose on April 28, 2018, 08:29:58 AM
A great campaign button, "I'm high on Hunt". Right up there with "I like Ike".
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Bob Hunt on April 28, 2018, 09:04:19 AM
Hi Perry:

Remember, this is Model Airplanes, not Model Railroading. I decline the nomination well in advance. Or, "Hell no, Hunt won't go..."

Bob Hunt  >:D
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Gary Dowler on April 28, 2018, 09:08:13 AM
Okay, Matt, this is an official question (and I think many here really want to know the answer to this...). Are you high?  ;D

Bob Hunt
You know, that's getting all legal now in a lot of places........Leads one to wonder....LOL
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Gary Dowler on April 28, 2018, 09:09:21 AM
Hi Perry:

Remember, this is Model Airplanes, not Model Railroading. I decline the nomination well in advance. Or, "Hell no, Hunt won't go..."

Bob Hunt  >:D
Hey now, don't be all picking on model railroads, some of us are kind of bi that way.....LOL!!
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Fredvon4 on April 28, 2018, 10:54:38 AM
LGBTMRR?    Grin
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Rene Whitaker on April 28, 2018, 04:58:49 PM
"As unpleasant as aspects of the conversation may be, partisan politics must occasionally be a part of such discussions as they are often the very root of the problem."

Exactly! Unaccountable "Agencies", "Departments Of", etc, etc, is WHY we're in some of the messes we're in as a Nation. This topic we're discussing would not be a topic IF the FAA hadn't over-reached into a HOBBY of all things.

In America we call it lobbying. Everywhere else it’s called bribery and corruption.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Randy Cuberly on April 28, 2018, 06:03:40 PM
In America we call it lobbying. Everywhere else it’s called bribery and corruption.

Real honest lobbying is a perfectly legitimate tool within Government!  It provides important information to government that it could not otherwise obtain.

The corruption comes in when unscrupulous politicians accept money or favors for that information.  That really isn't the fault of the lobbyists it's the fault of the crooked politicians we elect!

I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Just say NO".  I'm sure there are some politicians who do just that.  However I'm just as sure that a lot of them don't use the NO word very much unless they simply want more!

We as a free people have the responsibility to vet the representatives we vote for in our Government.  I'm terribly afraid we don't do a very good job of that. 

It seems that we often are asked to vote simply for the lesser of two evils, or not vote at all which may even be worse!

Folks it's time to accept our responsibility as free citizens and CLEAN HOUSE and SENATE!

Just not sure how to go about that!

Maybe the "Convention of States" is the answer to that.  At least maybe it gives some hope short of revolution.

As for "Partisan Politics" it shouldn't have to be a choice between "Freedom or Socialism" and "Total Government Control or Anarchy"!  The words Democracy and Republic have a tremendous lot in common.  Why are the parties so far apart?
Both seem to have only their own interests at heart!  Not the Peoples!  Therein lies the problem in my honest (Not Humble) opinion!  Sometimes it seem to be a question of which side has the bigger Crooks!

Sometimes it seems that the "Rule of law" doesn't have much meaning anymore!

Pretty Depressing!

Randy Cuberly
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: jim ballard on April 29, 2018, 12:46:34 PM
My second round of questions to the FAA got a little quicker and more detailed response. Here was my questions:

Then I have a couple of follow-up questions. (1) What is a drone? (2) How is my control line (tethered) model aircraft considered a drone? The maximum distance that my aircraft can be from me is 70 feet which is also the maximum altitude it can reach. It is not remote controlled, but is connected to me so that I have mechanical control of the aircraft at all times. it does not operate autonomously. I feel that the answer to my original question was just a blanket answer and did not really answer my specific question. Your answer to my original question didn't even include minimum and maximum weights for drones. No disrespect meant, but I would like a more detailed answer to the above two questions.

Thank you for your time


And the answer from the FAA:

Jim,

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

Control line and free flight models are exempted from registration.  They do not have a control station or control link. R/C models are considered drones and subject to registration. Models flown inside do not enter the airspace and those under .55 pound ones are not considered a hazard.

A radio controlled aircraft operating on a tether is, however, considered a drone and may require registration.

Regards,

Paul


Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Randy Cuberly on April 29, 2018, 01:14:21 PM
So....can we actually take "Paul's" answer as fact or is there more to come?

Can we get an official Document from the FAA stating the above facts!

Or is this just one guy's opinion to be changed by others at any time?

In other words "We've heard this before, but then we heard the CL airplanes need to be registered also!"

Thanks for your efforts they are definitely appreciated, but obviously they're just playing word games.  I'm going to just continue to ignore them!   y1  Z@@ZZZ

Randy Cuberly
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Tony Drago on April 29, 2018, 01:29:06 PM
"A radio controlled aircraft operating on a tether is, however, considered a drone and may require registration."
 So if you are flying C/L Scale and in some case's Carrier/Stunt (Z-Tron or some other battery powered device). Does that mean you still can get fined. 
Sounds like a loop hole for the FAA.
 
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Randy Cuberly on April 29, 2018, 01:36:57 PM
"A radio controlled aircraft operating on a tether is, however, considered a drone and may require registration."
 So if you are flying C/L Scale and in some case's Carrier/Stunt (Z-Tron or some other battery powered device). Does that mean you still can get fined. 
Sounds like a loop hole for the FAA.

Uhhhhhh....Ya think?   LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~

More double talk!  Don't forget, these guys are actually POLITICIANS at heart!  And to make that point remember that most of them are lawyers ....uhhh  or is that liayers.

Randy Cuberly
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Dan McEntee on April 29, 2018, 01:58:09 PM
My second round of questions to the FAA got a little quicker and more detailed response. Here was my questions:

Then I have a couple of follow-up questions. (1) What is a drone? (2) How is my control line (tethered) model aircraft considered a drone? The maximum distance that my aircraft can be from me is 70 feet which is also the maximum altitude it can reach. It is not remote controlled, but is connected to me so that I have mechanical control of the aircraft at all times. it does not operate autonomously. I feel that the answer to my original question was just a blanket answer and did not really answer my specific question. Your answer to my original question didn't even include minimum and maximum weights for drones. No disrespect meant, but I would like a more detailed answer to the above two questions.

Thank you for your time


And the answer from the FAA:

Jim,

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

Control line and free flight models are exempted from registration.  They do not have a control station or control link. R/C models are considered drones and subject to registration. Models flown inside do not enter the airspace and those under .55 pound ones are not considered a hazard.

A radio controlled aircraft operating on a tether is, however, considered a drone and may require registration.

Regards,

Paul


    Then the next round of questions should be meant to refine his last answer. A control line model with a remote throttle is not a radio controlled aircraft. It is still guided by the lines in the radius of the lines, but only the throttle is controlled. It's obvious from these answers that "Paul" is giving that he is completely unaware of the entire scope of model aviation. He also uses the word "may" when it comes to registering it., so that tells me he doesn't know.  And the previous question about model rockets is an interesting one also. An unguided model rocket can be a far more lethal weapon than a quad copter.
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: jim ballard on April 29, 2018, 10:27:52 PM
I don't know about you guys but I'm going to take it at face value. I doubt very much that "Paul" is a politician, but rather a working stiff like the rest of us with a job that requires him to answer questions like this while referring to the regulations. He obviously doesn't have an intimate knowledge of model aviation but I wouldn't expect him to. If anybody has additional questions, I would encourage you to ask them. Here is the e-mail address....  UASHelp@faa.gov
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Gary Dowler on April 29, 2018, 11:13:05 PM
Uhhhhhh....Ya think?   LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~

More double talk!  Don't forget, these guys are actually POLITICIANS at heart!  And to make that point remember that most of them are lawyers ....uhhh  or is that liayers.

Randy Cuberly
I'm with Randy. Live your life, enjoy your hobby, harm no one and forget the government and its bureaucratic thugs exist. 
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Jim Kraft on April 30, 2018, 02:34:34 PM
The definition of partisan politics. That is when the conservatives will not go along with the liberals. It does not apply the other way. It is only used when they need it to pass some stupid bill.

As long as we have two parties there will always be partisan politics. Never did like that phrase we will just agree to disagree.

I always liked our president who said, " Hi, I  am from the government and here to help you. Grab your wallet and run".
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Randy Cuberly on April 30, 2018, 08:45:49 PM
I don't know about you guys but I'm going to take it at face value. I doubt very much that "Paul" is a politician, but rather a working stiff like the rest of us with a job that requires him to answer questions like this while referring to the regulations. He obviously doesn't have an intimate knowledge of model aviation but I wouldn't expect him to. If anybody has additional questions, I would encourage you to ask them. Here is the e-mail address....  UASHelp@faa.gov

I also doubt that "Paul" is actually a politician.  However you can bet he works for one or more!  The Regulations he uses to answer his questions are approved by politicians and lawyers and that means that they are as "thin" and potentially interpretable as desired and possible!
Anyone who works for and around politicians will begin to think just like them or they won't keep their jobs!

Rule one, "Never give a complete answer to any question". 

Rule 2, See rule 1.

If you think this is a joke then you haven't been paying attention for the past 60 years or so!

Randy Cuberly
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck on April 30, 2018, 10:12:14 PM
I'm kinda "hoping against hope" that this initially informative thread won't sink the rest of the way into partisan politics.

   It hasn't, and I think you will find both the Red and Blue on the same page when it regards the current situation. But this admittedly trivial example is such a perfect, hallmark, example of how a bureaucracy can and would casually destroy something, almost incidentally, while attempting to make themselves look slightly better and accomplishing nothing, it would be entirely remiss not to point it out. 

     The current situation - endless regulation by non-representive and essentially unaccountable self-promoted masterminds attempting to control the lives of the individual - is fundamentally unAmerican. It is Plato's monstrous and evil Republic - not the republic envisioned by the founding fathers. It is exactly and precisely what the country was formed to escape and prevent, and millions have fought and died to prevent.

  For far too long, collective action has been prioritized over the liberty of the individual. Collective action is sometimes necessary, and those situations are well-defined by the constitution. Spewing out endless regulation on every topic from model airplane laws to food labelling to defining farm ditches as "navigable waterways (or a million other examples) IS NOT mentioned, is not necessary and has the effect of inhibiting personal liberty. Neither is the elected representatives creating buffer agencies to generate these regulations in order to insulate themselves from backlash.

   The world will not end if model airplanes become illegal tomorrow, but multiply the same problem by many millions of other "trivial" activities and practices casually steamrolled by the same system, and it become an OCEAN of evil and mandatory to fight by all legal means necessary.

   We have a system to right such conditions, it was exercised on Nov 8, 2016. Maybe we didn't get the ideal man for the job, but at least we got one willing to take up the issue.

   Brett
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: BYU on April 30, 2018, 10:37:14 PM
“Spewing out endless regulation on every topic from model airplane laws to food labelling”

Personal choice (Liberty) is only possible with honest information placed in front of the “chooser”. Labeling allows choice by providing such information, without it you have no idea what the food processor/ manufacturer puts in your food (and without labels there is no traceability, if such food proves to be a health hazard). I like to know if I am electing (or not) to eat a pesticide based genetically modified food, or if the food has a ton of sodium or sugar. Thanks, but I value accurate food labeling.



Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Bill Heher on April 30, 2018, 11:10:51 PM
So C/L are SUAV in the eyes of the people who answered the question, then they direct you to a site that has not 1 mention of the term Control Line flying.  I bet dollars to donuts they have never seen a CL model in flight.

I guess it is time to flood the local FISDO with complaints of unregistered SUAV every time we spot a balloon tethered to a car lot or discount store, kids flying kites, Tethered balloon rides, and every time you see a drone anywhere but at an approved site.

What is the definition of " Sustained flight in the atmosphere", a kite can fly 500+ feet high, stay up as long as the wind blows and has no power supply for a transponder, lights, and are invisible on radar.

Aw hell, I'm getting old- maybe I can be a flagrant violator, get arrested and sentenced , and demand they provide me building supplies and books / magazines about airplanes to go with the free medical/dental.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck on April 30, 2018, 11:20:04 PM
“Spewing out endless regulation on every topic from model airplane laws to food labelling”

Personal choice (Liberty) is only possible with honest information placed in front of the “chooser”. Labeling allows choice by providing such information, without it you have no idea what the food processor/ manufacturer puts in your food (and without labels there is no traceability, if such food proves to be a health hazard). I like to know if I am electing (or not) to eat a pesticide based genetically modified food, or if the food has a ton of sodium or sugar. Thanks, but I value accurate food labeling.

   So do I. But the federal government has *no defined role* in such an activity. They aren't there to referee your life.

      Brett
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck on April 30, 2018, 11:24:46 PM

Jim,

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

Control line and free flight models are exempted from registration.  They do not have a control station or control link. R/C models are considered drones and subject to registration. Models flown inside do not enter the airspace and those under .55 pound ones are not considered a hazard.

A radio controlled aircraft operating on a tether is, however, considered a drone and may require registration.

   That seems perfectly sensible to me and that is about what I would hope for. RC (for the most part) *should* be regulated and I am amazed that they have managed to go scot-free for decades while the much safer model rocketry is so tightly controlled.

    When they say "tether" they mean a wired "RC" system that replaces the radio link with a hard wire, not a CL model with radio shutoff or retracts.

    Brett
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brent Williams on May 01, 2018, 12:50:36 AM
My second round of questions to the FAA got a little quicker and more detailed response.

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

Control line and free flight models are exempted from registration.  They do not have a control station or control link. R/C models are considered drones and subject to registration. Models flown inside do not enter the airspace and those under .55 pound ones are not considered a hazard.

A radio controlled aircraft operating on a tether is, however, considered a drone and may require registration.

Regards,

Paul


Now, we might have some tentative trust if the quoted response or a similar statement can be visibly posted and be made easy to find on an official AMA / FAA website.  Hate to see the control line hobby needlessly hassled by some powered up law enforcement officer or other fun-police type bureaucrats.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: BYU on May 01, 2018, 10:32:53 AM
“referee your life”

What on earth does that mean?
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck on May 01, 2018, 08:53:10 PM
“referee your life”

What on earth does that mean?

  It means that the government is not there to be the arbiter of the interactions you have with other people or corporations. You don't go running off to daddy to tell on someone for, say, not labelling their food or not labelling it correctly.

   The Federal government exists to support 3 areas where collective action is required for safety and liberty - external defense, control of interstate crime, and ensuring fair interstate competition. Just about anything else is supposed to be done by the state or local government, or not at all. That is it, nothing more. That is more-or-less how it worked from 1789 (when the Bill of Rights was adopted) until the New Deal (1933). A few modifications (like the postal service) were made, but not much else.

    The New Deal kicked off the "federal government is your mommy and daddy" theory adopted by other countries for years, and reaching it's zenith (so far...) in the sickening Obama years, where the solution to every problem was more cradle-to-grave government regulation. That's what he meant by "fundamentally transform".

   The USA was formed with the notions of "natural law" and the supremacy of the *individual*. The goal of government is to protect *individual personal liberty*. The constitution and bill of right was drafted in order to *limit the power of the government* to impose itself on individual personal liberty, and the Bill of Rights was intended  to directly address some of the limits of government.

    This is *fundamentally different* than all forms of government that preceded it, on purpose, and quite consciously so.

    Brett
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: jim ballard on May 01, 2018, 09:45:34 PM
I also doubt that "Paul" is actually a politician.  However you can bet he works for one or more!  The Regulations he uses to answer his questions are approved by politicians and lawyers and that means that they are as "thin" and potentially interpretable as desired and possible!
Anyone who works for and around politicians will begin to think just like them or they won't keep their jobs!

Rule one, "Never give a complete answer to any question". 

Rule 2, See rule 1.

If you think this is a joke then you haven't been paying attention for the past 60 years or so!

Randy Cuberly

Randy, I don't disagree with you and I don't think this is a joke. All I was trying to do is get some answers from the organization that has created the regulations that we're faced with, and maybe provide some information for this topic. I have written my representatives and senators since this regulation became known to me. Do I really think it will do any good? Probably not.....but I've done what I could. I assure you I've been paying attention!
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Steve Helmick on May 01, 2018, 10:17:19 PM
So C/L are SUAVE in the eyes of the people who answered the question, then they direct you to a site that has not 1 mention of the term Control Line flying.  I bet dollars to donuts they have never seen a CL model in flight.


Fixed it for ya, Bill. Maybe we should go fly a demo in DC?  :)  Steve
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Jim Svitko on May 02, 2018, 06:57:09 AM
Regarding the government being "your life's referee":

Some of you, especially Texans or those in the oil industry, might remember Eddie Chiles, the man who, I believe, started the Western company.  He was also owner of the Texas Rangers for a while.

When I moved to Fort Worth in '79, Eddie Chiles was making pitches for certain politicians.  During one radio ad, he said "There are three things I want the government to do.  Defend our shores, deliver the mail, and leave me alone."
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Steve Thompson on May 02, 2018, 12:05:05 PM
There was an article in Flying Models and also reprinted in Stunt News about some self professed yokels flying a control line plane in the park right across the street and visible from the White House during Bill Clinton's reign.  They were asked to leave.

So, flying for politicians has been done, just not in a productive way.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck on May 02, 2018, 02:50:47 PM
Sounds more like the FAA has their collective heads up their buttholes. If it is controlled by the "tethers", then it is NOT RC nor a drone.  The RC portion of the tethered model is only for accesories such as landing  gear, bomb drop or leaf toss, smoke generation, tail hook, etc.. NOT flight control. Thus it is NOT an RC plane, thus NOT a drone.  Have any of them ever seen a controline model,ever??? H^^

  Just to clarify, there are definitely items that look and act exactly like your typical quadcopter drone that work via a trailing wire system rather than RC, but otherwise precisely identical in function and given a sufficiently long tether (which is what they typically have) can act more-or-less the same way. I think those *are* a reasonable target for this registration/etc, if you get past the premise that the FAA should not be permitted to exist in the first place.

  Brett
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Ken Culbertson on May 02, 2018, 05:14:25 PM
There was an article in Flying Models and also reprinted in Stunt News about some self professed yokels flying a control line plane in the park right across the street and visible from the White House during Bill Clinton's reign.  They were asked to leave.

So, flying for politicians has been done, just not in a productive way.

I used to fly across "the Potamac Sewer" from the Lincoln Memorial as a kid.  Flew my first pattern there that included a landing.  Kennedy was president.

Ken
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Dan McEntee on May 02, 2018, 07:38:59 PM
  Just to clarify, there are definitely items that look and act exactly like your typical quadcopter drone that work via a trailing wire system rather than RC, but otherwise precisely identical in function and given a sufficiently long tether (which is what they typically have) can act more-or-less the same way. I think those *are* a reasonable target for this registration/etc, if you get past the premise that the FAA should not be permitted to exist in the first place.

  Brett

    I believe it was this type of UAV quad copter that enabled some communications to be restored in Puerto Rico after the hurricane wiped out their electrical grid. I don't remember where I read it, but they were quad copters or conventional set up helis with relay equipment on board, and power for the controls and power plant was provided via the tether so that they could maintain altitude and position for an extended length of time. Might have been the first time these were used extensively but I don't think they got a lot of press. Might have read that in Smithsonian Air or Sport Aviation.
   Type at you later,
    Dan McEntee
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: CircuitFlyer on May 02, 2018, 09:15:46 PM
If anyone is interested, some of the relevant text of the house bill that was passed last week can be found here, SEC. 343. SPECIAL RULES FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/text?r=4#toc-HFEC15A21824F420AAE391308BC2AEE02

And here, § 45509. Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/text?r=4#toc-H356B69DA624A44FFA53A216AFE5A3376


Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Mike Scholtes on May 02, 2018, 10:45:58 PM
Paul, thanks for posting the actual text of the law. Nothing like having the rules book when having a discussion about what the rules are.

If I interpret 45509(a) correctly, what we understand as model aircraft, and which are defined in Section 343 "Special Rules for Model Aircraft," are entirely outside the scope of FAA regulation and oversight. There are conditions, basically that we adopt an honor system and operate within the rules of the AMA for our particular branch of the hobby and operate safely. Within what used to be called uncontrolled airspace (Class G) up to 400 feet AGL there is no regulation. Close to an airport you have to alert the tower, though how is not specified.

45501(5) defines "model aircraft" as being flown for hobby or recreational purposes, so this will require commercial quadrotor flyers (or any other commercially flown model aircraft) to register and be subject to regulations (as yet unwritten).

Section 343(a) even prohibits the FAA from adopting regulations for "model aircraft" as defined. This was in the prior version of the law, but the fact it is re-authorized is reason to hope the congress will abide by what it says.

So, from this I conclude (1) that our control line models, even scale and carrier using remote throttles, are entirely unregulated by the FAA, and (2) conventional  model aircraft including all recreational RC (and yes, the cheapo Walmart quads) are also outside the purview of  FAA regulation.

I think this is a pretty good result, and to the extent the AMA had a hand in achieving this, kudos to them.

And PLEASE anyone reading this or the statutes themselves, don't go off on some rant about the jackbooted thugs from the unelected unconstitutional gummint agencies ignoring these limits and stomping all over your freedoms. If you feel that way, you can go fly models in Galt's Gulch with the other libertarian escapists. These laws were passed by a solidly and deeply conservative Republican Congress and will be signed into law by a Republican president. The law is up for re-authorization in five years. If it hasn't worked to your/our liking, vote.


Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck on May 02, 2018, 10:51:12 PM
Paul, thanks for posting the actual text of the law. Nothing like having the rules book when having a discussion about what the rules are.

If I interpret 45509(a) correctly, what we understand as model aircraft, and which are defined in Section 343 "Special Rules for Model Aircraft," are entirely outside the scope of FAA regulation and oversight. There are conditions, basically that we adopt an honor system and operate within the rules of the AMA for our particular branch of the hobby and operate safely. Outside what used to be called uncontrolled airspace (Class G) up to 400 feet AGL there is no regulation. Close to an airport you have to alert the tower, though how is not specified.

45501(5) defines "model aircraft" as being flown for hobby or recreational purposes, so this will require commercial quadrotor flyers (or any other commercially flown model aircraft) to register and be subject to regulations (as yet unwritten).

Section 343(a) even prohibits the FAA from adopting regulations for "model aircraft" as defined. This was in the prior version of the law, but the fact it is re-authorized is reason to hope the congress will abide by what it says.

So, from this I conclude (1) that our control line models, even scale and carrier using remote throttles, are entirely unregulated by the FAA, and (2) conventional  model aircraft including all recreational RC (and yes, the cheapo Walmart quads) are also outside the purview of  FAA regulation.

I think this is a pretty good result, and to the extent the AMA had a hand in achieving this, kudos to them.

And PLEASE anyone reading this or the statutes themselves, don't go off on some rant about the jackbooted thugs from the unelected unconstitutional gummint agencies ignoring these limits and stomping all over your freedoms. If you feel that way, you can go fly models in Galt's Gulch with the other libertarian escapists. These laws were passed by a solidly and deeply conservative Republican Congress and will be signed into law by a Republican president. The law is up for re-authorization in five years. If it hasn't worked to your/our liking, vote.

   This is exactly what the AMA hoped for (and are now claiming credit for, whether true or not). It is the ideal situation for us. Whether it gets adopted as shown, modified, or not passed remains to be seen.

     Brett
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Target on May 03, 2018, 08:47:19 AM
I personally don't think the AMA did a great job in getting any outcome. They initially welcomed multi rotors with open arms, which i think was a mistake.
If things go our way, it will be a welcomed surprise.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck on May 03, 2018, 08:59:00 AM
I personally don't think the AMA did a great job in getting any outcome. They initially welcomed multi rotors with open arms, which i think was a mistake.
If things go our way, it will be a welcomed surprise.

   Hard to say, and it is not over yet. I am sure they will claim credit for success and avoid blame for failure by claiming that the members didn't "make their voices heard" if it goes awry.

    Brett
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Mike Scholtes on May 03, 2018, 09:16:34 AM
As of today the House-passed version (see above) is in the Senate for review. People who track this stuff give it a 79% chance of passing the Senate as-is, which means it is not very controversial. Believe it or not, most FAA regs have nothing to do with model aircraft so it seems unlikely there is a big lobbying push to wipe the skies clean of model planes, tethered or not. Regardless of what you feel the AMA's role has been, it is the only organized advocate for keeping model aviation (all forms) free from regulation. It is the only Community Based Organization with coherent and comprehensive rules for safe operation of model aircraft. I too would like to see the AMA promote "traditional" model building but for now, having an advocate for keeping us free of inappropriate regulation, or any regulation, is a plus.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Fredvon4 on May 03, 2018, 10:32:21 AM
I must be thick....

Way back in 2012 the Congress carved out a exemption
 inside a bill mandating DOT and FAA do SOMETHING....where oh where have we seen this before...oh yes ever time there is some crisis...in that case the on and on examples of drones impeding emergency crews in Cal fires and some anecdotal near crashes with commercial flight

Congress demanded DOT do something and as they did the demand they tryied to carve out Hobby flight....

DOT/FAA set some new rules and a comment period then made a final rules....to this day that has NOT been challenged......the fact that DOT/FAA  insisted under their mandate they have full authority to regulate EVERY thing that flies

Congress read and accepted the NEW DOT/FAA ruling AS WRITTEN....much has been said pondered if the ruling  ( a federal Law with real penalties).. AND still in effect, applied to Control Line...AMA sez NO! some low level employee of FAA sez NO!----- but the Federal rule still has language that sez YES!   I say  that is all a LEO, Judge, or Lawyer will ever consider if YOU are charged with this Felony

This new Re-authorization does not change the current status quo....We must wait to see after it passes IF the DOT/FAA changes their position...I do not feel confident that THEY will hold a different position...exception the slight possibility that they have 5 years of history now of non compliance   ( modelers getting Licensed)  -----and I am sure THEY might NOT want to pursue prosecution in the courts POLITICALLY since congress has express twice the Hobbyist Carve out....

So if the DOT / FAA proposes a NEW rule change...will we get more that the 4800 respondents as happened in 2012?   or was it 2015?  to old to remember right now

Title: What the AMA is up against
Post by: Brett Buck on June 07, 2018, 08:17:13 AM
Note this article and picture:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-officials-warn-congress-risks-drones-seek-powers-101645306.html

This is the fight the AMA is going out of its way to pick, and why their attempt to tie model aviation inextricably to drones is almost certain to screw us all.

    Brett
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Mike Griffin on June 07, 2018, 08:41:13 AM
When these things first made their debut a few years ago, I said is was only a matter of time until a terrorist will fly one of these things into a crowd at Disney World or some other mass gathering and release a chemical or biological agent to kill masses of people. Frankly, I am surprised it has not happened already. 

The absolute insanity for the AMA to continually include these things and keep them connected to the model avaiation sector is complete lunacy and will, as Brett said, take us down with them.

Mike 
Title: Re: What the AMA is up against
Post by: Ken Culbertson on June 07, 2018, 08:53:38 AM
Note this article and picture:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-officials-warn-congress-risks-drones-seek-powers-101645306.html

This is the fight the AMA is going out of its way to pick, and why their attempt to tie model aviation inextricably to drones is almost certain to screw us all.

    Brett

I could not agree more.

Ken
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Jim Damerell on June 07, 2018, 09:20:44 AM
I guess they have to crack down on Stunt Kites next.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: john e. holliday on June 07, 2018, 12:07:37 PM
Just like gun control,  unless they start cracking down on the violaters it will get worse as only the honest people respect laws.   When some body does use a drone to inflict damage and harm people there are so called lawyers out there that will get them off with a slap on the hands.  Just like guns, the gun didn't kill it was the person holding the gun that killed that should have been executed instead of us taking care of them in a so called prison for the rest of their life.  It doesn't matter how a person kills some one else they should be done away with permanently.   This getting off on a mental plea is a farce as well as their upbringing should not let them off the hook.   But we have all these do gooders that look the other way until it hits home with some one close getting killed. S?P

Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Out of the Loop on June 07, 2018, 12:16:19 PM
The Model Aircraft Special Rule...
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Mike Scholtes on June 07, 2018, 12:36:52 PM
Thanks for locating and posting this discussion of the Special Rule. However, it was issued in June 2014, four years ago and not as part of the current reauthorization of the FAA. If it is adopted as current thinking, great. It does track with the current definitions discussed above that virtually exempt all model aircraft used for hobby and recreational purposes from FAA rulemaking. It appears we model builder/flyers are safe for at least another 5 years.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Gerald Arana on June 07, 2018, 01:28:38 PM
  There is no limit to government stupidity. 


BINGO! You have that right Jim.

I am a former govrn'mt employee i.e., I worked for the county, and I can tell you that the way they get rid of an incompetent worker is to promote them!

I personally was an out cast because I couldn't wrap my head around their way of thinking and when I passed the state Surveyors exam, I soon went into business for myself.

Never been happier to leave a job in my life!

Jerry

PS: I won't be registering any model.  HB~>
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Randy Cuberly on June 07, 2018, 04:23:24 PM
So the way I see it from that description they have limited the FAA from regulating Model aircraft BUT...They have not limited the FAA from regulating model aircraft if the FAA wants to regulate model aircraft...

What a load of pure unadulterated Bull @#$% from a load of legal lawyers that really don't want to do anything about anything, but want people to think they are!

Now Somebody please try to tell me that they really understood what was in that document!   ::)

Randy Cuberly

Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Ken Culbertson on June 07, 2018, 04:39:42 PM
So the way I see it from that description they have limited the FAA from regulating Model aircraft BUT...They have not limited the FAA from regulating model aircraft if the FAA wants to regulate model aircraft...

What a load of pure unadulterated Bull @#$% from a load of legal lawyers that really don't want to do anything about anything, but want people to think they are!

Now Somebody please try to tell me that they really understood what was in that document!   ::)

Randy Cuberly

They really understood what was in that document.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Out of the Loop on June 07, 2018, 05:19:53 PM
House of Representatives version of recently passed 2018 FAA authorization     Now on to the the US Senate      Then to committee to hammer out the final result     All of this before Sept 30th ??
https://rules.house.gov/sites/republicans.rules.house.gov/files/115-2/HR%204/HR%204%20Section-By-Section.pdf

AMA response
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2018/04/27/house-of-representatives-passes-faa-reauthorization-act/
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Randy Cuberly on June 07, 2018, 10:46:04 PM
They really understood what was in that document.

When I used the Pronoun "They" in that context I was referring to You and the rest of the people that read the document, not the politician lawyers that wrote it.  Of course they understood it because they deliberately made it completely Not Understandable so they can do whatever they want and still be within the context of the document!

In other words a bunch of ordinary lying, cheating Politicians!

On the other hand the AMA response was exactly what I expected.  They truly do not understand what was written and don't care as long as they can rake in the money and take a bow!

Randy Cuberly
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Frank Imbriaco on June 08, 2018, 06:03:55 AM
The current  interim(and possibly future) Executive Director of the AMA is Chad Budreau.(see interview, page 148 June 2018 Model Aviation)
In his former capacity with the AMA as Gov't Relations Liaison, he was "in charge" of handling a problem we unfortunate control line devotees had in August 2017. A Stunt contest was blocked because it was being held at an R/C flying field within 5 miles of Trump's weekend home- Trump National Golf Course in Bedminster, NJ. Assurances  given that there would be no R/C flying that day.
 Kudos to CD Jim Vagani  for finding another venue at the eleventh hour and fifty-ninth minute.
Mr. Budreau claims in his interview that he occasionally flew CL as a youngster.
Can anyone say "Mr. Potato Head " ?
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: peabody on June 08, 2018, 06:39:37 AM
Frank.....I heard about your situation.
Dou you think that the guys with guns ever READ the rule about flying?
More than likely they just wanted to enforce "no drones or model airplanes" within 5 miles....something they no doubt learned on TV....
The guy in charge of them more than likely knew of the RC club's location and sent the goons with guns to make sure the no fly was being adhered to.

I receive quite a few communiques from the FAA as well as the AMA, and they are TRYING to get along.....negativity does NO ONE any good.

Have fun....
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Fredvon4 on June 08, 2018, 11:27:14 AM
Precedent is EVERY THING in law and rule making... in the past the Congress created a group: DOT and FAA to to be a layer between them and the public. They (the Congress) gave this un-elected Agency very broad powers: Prosecution under Federal law, fines, and even imprisonment.

Later the Congress mandated the DOT/FAA do something about the "Drone problem" .... in the legislation they attempted to "Carve out" a special class for Hobby Aero modeling.......

The FAA under DOT proposed a new set of rules with public comment period and then ENACTED the new rules. They went to great pains and a lot of convoluted wording to insist THEY (DOT/FAA) had the authority to INCLUDE hobby model aero flight. The Rules were written.....and CONGRESS DID NOT object or reign in the DOT/FAA rules

This latest round of Congressional legislation had the same, or similar "Carve out for Hobby Aero Modeling"   

I read up, and study Congressional action VS DOT, or FCC, or BATF a lot in my research on Aero Modeling, HAM radio, or Gun Rights

Since congress authorized these agencies they have direct over sight....In the last 30 years, the congress has never resisted or reigned in the over reaches...EVER!

Thus, my belief is DOT and FAA, what ever new rules they propose, will be the de facto Law of the Land----despite any Carve out

During the last proposal I commented, as did 4500 other citizens...a dismally small amount

I also wrote my House and Senate guys....in both cases getting back a boiler plate "thanks for your input"; BUT then went on and on, and on about totally unrelated stuff MY representative was working on....same when I write them on FCC or BATF....

Congress IS NOT LISTENING to any of us

Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Randy Cuberly on June 08, 2018, 11:56:20 AM
Precedent is EVERY THING in law and rule making... in the past the Congress created a group:
…………..
…………..
…………..

Congress IS NOT LISTENING to any of us

You said it!  Congress speaks but never listens to anyone except the "BANKERS".

I'm terribly afraid the situation has become untenable and hopeless!  Congress has become a bloated body that rolls around, makes a lot of noise, and does precisely nothing except inhale money!

A sad state indeed!

Peabody:

I differ with you in the value of negativity.  It often serves to remind us when we are being made fools of!
This is definitely one more of those times!

Randy Cuberly
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Ken Culbertson on June 08, 2018, 12:52:45 PM
You said it!  Congress speaks but never listens to anyone except the "BANKERS".

I'm terribly afraid the situation has become untenable and hopeless!  Congress has become a bloated body that rolls around, makes a lot of noise, and does precisely nothing except inhale money!

A sad state indeed!

Peabody:

I differ with you in the value of negativity.  It often serves to remind us when we are being made fools of!
This is definitely one more of those times!

Randy Cuberly

I think your response is understated.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Frank Imbriaco on June 08, 2018, 01:46:49 PM
Frank.....I heard about your situation.
Dou you think that the guys with guns ever READ the rule about flying?
More than likely they just wanted to enforce "no drones or model airplanes" within 5 miles....something they no doubt learned on TV....
The guy in charge of them more than likely knew of the RC club's location and sent the goons with guns to make sure the no fly was being adhered to.

I receive quite a few communiques from the FAA as well as the AMA, and they are TRYING to get along.....negativity does NO ONE any good.
 
Rich : 
 Hope you're not implying that I'm being negative. To the contrary.
Every model flyer within the 50 mile ring of Trump's Bedminster, NJ  summer weekend retreat is trying to be positive . There are some CL guys who also fly RC and from June through Sept last year we were grounded nearly every week, Wed eve to Sun nite.  Last August, we were grounded for almost the first 3 weeks.
AMA has in writing that CL and FF is exempt. Not so. AMA's Prez , District II VP and Chad Budreau have yet to come up with some relief(as promised verbally and in the pages of MA).
The same thing in DC and Mari-largo, FL.
We are to be congratulated for being so patient- don't you think ??
 

Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Target on June 08, 2018, 10:59:06 PM
I personally think that government stupidity needs to be spotlighted. Ignorance of details in enforcent is not a satisfactory reason. Just like ignorance of the laws isn't a satisfactory reason to break them (just ask LEO's and judges).
So a focused dose of negativity or embarrasment hopefully might just cause a positive reaction to occur. That is my positive hope.

R,
Target
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Dennis Leonhardi on June 09, 2018, 01:56:21 AM
I appreciate the efforts made by several here to share viewpoints, experiences and facts.  And I’d like to add a few comments.

Brett, there have been times I’m not sure you and I could agree on what day of the week it is, but you’ve hit it way out of the ball park here!  Seems to me even a moron could see where mass-market drones would take us …

Yes, AMA leadership is the bad guys.  I don’t pay dues to the FAA, have never voted on their leadership, and don’t need their insurance to fly at any club field.  And the AMA leadership as it now exists surely doesn’t represent me!

Too often folks in a position of authority busy themselves creating and expanding a fiefdom for themselves rather than focusing on the reason they’ve been placed in that position …   

And I can’t resist quoting the AMA notice reproduced in the original post: “More than that, this long-standing hobby has been passed down from generation to generation and is a tradition for many American families.”

Any of you know families that have passed on drone flying “from generation to generation”?  I sure don’t, and would think that alone separates us!

Dennis
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Dennis Leonhardi on June 09, 2018, 02:28:30 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


Airmodeling?

A couple of years ago I checked out some FM radio stations in my area and was treated to an announcer joyfully describing his (very brief) “airmodeling” experience:

He purchased a drone for $700, took it out on the street, and on his 2nd flight crashed into parts of the power grid - thereby knocking out power in his area.

Unfortunately, similar situations have been all too common with drones.  And that’s exactly why I feel our AMA should stay 10 miles away from the drone scene.

Let commercial (and/or responsible) users form their own association.  If they are to have the impact that many predict, they might soon outnumber us.

Surely we don’t need them to help with the functions we expect of AMA leadership.

Dennis
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Target on June 09, 2018, 08:07:27 AM
FPV RC flying should be completely separate from Line Of Sight Traditional RC and C/L, FF, etc.

The distinction of not having to physically see your model is where OUR problems lie.


As I said before, the only registration with the FAA should be those people that have FPV systems. Traditional model flying has never caused problems with full scale aircraft or been considered a threat to security.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Brett Buck on June 09, 2018, 10:50:44 AM
FPV RC flying should be completely separate from Line Of Sight Traditional RC and C/L, FF, etc.

The distinction of not having to physically see your model is where OUR problems lie.


As I said before, the only registration with the FAA should be those people that have FPV systems. Traditional model flying has never caused problems with full scale aircraft or been considered a threat to security.

   Absolutely, but Budreau, et. al, are dedicated to linking them together.


    Brett
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Target on June 09, 2018, 11:34:04 AM
It's a sad state of affairs.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Randy Cuberly on June 09, 2018, 01:33:36 PM
   Absolutely, but Budreau, et. al, are dedicated to linking them together.


    Brett

I believe they're only dedicated to linking to the MONEY!  So far they haven't even done a very good job of that!

Randy Cuberly
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Mike Griffin on June 09, 2018, 02:16:52 PM
I do not pretend to be knowledgeable enough to answer the question I am going to ask and it probably has been asked before but I will go ahead and ask it again.

What would be involved in pulling the CL, RC, FF segments out of the AMA and starting a new and TRUE flying model stand alone association? 


I can imagine it would be a huge undertaking to establish but I would think not impossible. 


Mike
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: peabody on June 09, 2018, 02:36:41 PM
Hi Mike
Besides losing FAI/Worlds opportunities?
Years ago there was an outfit called the Sport Fliers Association....attracting RC flyers and using a commercial magazine as their information and attraction communicator.
Bombed big time.
Turns out most homeowners policies DID NOT cover air models (I wager this has gotten to be even more of an issue). Landowners were very reluctant to lease to any groups that couldn't provide an umbrella. Government agencies were even more so.
A (knowledgeable) friend looked at the AMA's insurance, and there is a LOT more than what they state.
Litigious Society....
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Ken Culbertson on June 09, 2018, 06:48:13 PM
Hi Mike
Besides losing FAI/Worlds opportunities?
Years ago there was an outfit called the Sport Fliers Association....attracting RC flyers and using a commercial magazine as their information and attraction communicator.
Bombed big time.
Turns out most homeowners policies DID NOT cover air models (I wager this has gotten to be even more of an issue). Landowners were very reluctant to lease to any groups that couldn't provide an umbrella. Government agencies were even more so.
A (knowledgeable) friend looked at the AMA's insurance, and there is a LOT more than what they state.
Litigious Society....
It would be far simpler to parse out Drones into a "sister" organization still under the AMA and have separate insurance, etc.  Membership would be separate so that we don't have to bare what must be the enormous cost for liability insurance for the drones.
Convincing them to do it would be next to impossible.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Air Ministry . on June 09, 2018, 11:25:43 PM
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--6Osmj1B4--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/wenqvvcaxqiq3h7nemdg.jpg)

 :-\

Be a bit off a worry if it got a blocked carb jet .  :-X
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Ken Culbertson on October 03, 2018, 11:51:27 AM
Looks like the AMA did it again, or should I say didn't do it again.  Senate passed the reauthorization with the 400' rule in it.  Well that kills free flight and most of sailplanes and about 1/2 of the rest of RC.  Looks like CL comes out OK except that I won't be able to use my 450' lines.   I think it was the Hillarymaster that scared them.

Ken
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Jim Kraft on October 03, 2018, 03:29:49 PM
In the works is a test one has to take and have an authorization card to prove you have passed the test. They will be required to be able to show law enforcement when ever asked for. The penalty for not having the required card has not been discussed.

In the bill they have essentially removed the part covering drones and now have full control to do as they wish. Confiscating drones or shooting them down is within there discretion. A Frisby is a drone. A kite is a drone. If it leaves the ground it is a drone.

Go to you tube and type in FAA regulations. There is a guy there that has all 1200 pages and picks out what he believes will apply to us. Mostly what ever they want as far as I can see. They have full jurisdiction to pretty much make up the rules as they go. I believe they will have the test requirements finished before the end of the year.
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Dave_Trible on October 03, 2018, 04:06:10 PM
Of what I've read we in CL are in good shape-don't even have to register.  The RC and Free Flight guys will be screwed though.  Maybe we can recruit some of them over to, or back to CL.  The really worst part I think though is that what's left of the hobby industry depends on RC money.  Some of that will remain (pylon for example) but it can't be good news.   There will need to be many rules changes coming for these groups in the effort to make them comply.  Also some means to measure altitude at contests.   I believe we can thank the drone culture for this new scrutiny and pressure on our hobby. 

Dave
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Target on October 03, 2018, 05:42:58 PM
The thing that floors me is that the guys responsible for all the crap coming down will hardly be effected. Most Droners fly lower than 400' AGL. And they are the "threat".

The ones most effected will be those that fly RC thermal sailplanes. Those are over 400' on almost any winch launch and hopefully go up from there. a typical F3B sailplane winch launch on mono line is 900-1200'....
This is why I started into C/L in the first place a few years back. I knew it was immanent.
Discus Launch Gliders (DLG) might have a chance to continue, but even those easily go up to 750' or higher in a thermal.

It totally sucks. :(
Title: Re: Here we go again
Post by: Dave Harmon on October 03, 2018, 07:06:29 PM
Chris....you're right....it DOES suck....totally!!
BUT......hard to "keep positive"!!
Here is something I snagged from the NSRCA (Pattern) listserver.

>>>Here is some info I got from Tony Stillman at AMA.  I had asked about the hard limit in Class G airspace (unrestricted) which is where my flying field is located.    This is what he replied.     Lets keep positive.

As a matter of fact, the FAA told us it could be weeks or even years before the law is enacted.  Our Gov relations team is in DC RIGHT NOW working on this issue with the FAA.  The FAA has the authority to modify this and has told us as well as sent letters to us to say that they have no problem with AMA flying above 400’.  We are very hopeful that they will resolve this issue way before the laws become enacted.

So… nothing changes today or even when Pres. Trump signs the bill (probably tomorrow)…. Keep flying like you always have… I know I will!

Tony Stillman
Flying Site Assistance Coordinator/Competitions-Technical Director
Academy of Model Aeronautics<<<