Superbowl, Drones, AMA...

[Doug Burright]

The recent events of drones being in violation of law around the stadium, show exactly why the AMA should drop efforts to include drones and their "pilots" under the blanket of Model Aviation and the airplane hobby! The complete disregard for safety, common sense, and THE LAW, show that the drone people do not care about established "norms" of behavior for people who enjoy flying model aircraft.
How much money, time, effort, etcetera has the AMA spent of our money, to try to incorporate the drone group into compliance with regular modeling activities? Obviously, all of the work and money has been wasted, because the drone group does not care about being part of a group that has been without conflict with the public and the government, for decades!
It is past time that the AMA absolve itself of the drone issue, and let the drone group learn how to take care of themselves. The government should not hold the model airplane group accountable for the dangerous and senseless actions of a group that continuously puts people and property in peril, and refuses to conform to codes long established for other model aircraft usage.

[john e. holliday]

Well don't hold your breath waiting for the AMA to get rid of the so called drones.   At our local dirt some guy is flying quad copters taping/video recording some of the races.  Even flying down close while the winner is getting his trophy.  Supposedly the guy doing the flying of the quad knows nothing of the AMA other than it stands for American Medical Association.

[Jim Kraft]

The only improvement the FAA has made for 2019 is, you do not have to belong to a model organization to fly. FAA has taken that job over. AMA is no longer the governing body for model aviation. FAA is.

No one knows what they are going to spring on us as they have not finalized their rules yet. The shut down of the airport in New Jersey the other day  because of a supposed drone siting, is not helping any. The only thing we know so far, is that there is a 400 foot rule in altitude, and 100 mph speed limit.

There will be a test and a card given which qualifies those who have the card that they have passed the test. Transponders may be required in the future. Oh joy.

[Sean McEntee]

    I belong to a sUAS page on facebook, which is full of people doing the right thing.  They're registered, licensed and certified under Part 107, and comply with all published FARs relating to sUAS.  Allot of them are commercial operators, using them for business purposes.  They are just as concerned with these issues as we, the conventional aeromodelling community, are.

   The problem isn't those drone operators who are AMA members and FAA registered, but those who aren't.  I estimate that 9/10 airspace infractions involving sUAS aren't malicious, but simply operators who are oblivious to the rules, and the penalties for breaking them.
   
  Go to any Best Buy or Walmart, or anywhere else where drones are sold, and no one there could even tell you what the FAA is, let alone give accurate information on registering.  Same thing goes with buying them online.  People cant buy a car from a dealership and drive it off the lot without proper licensing, insurance and registration, but they damn sure can go buy a drone and fly it in the parking lot.  Therein lies the problem. There is a remarkable lack of information being distributed.


  I think the impact that we will feel in the CL and FF world will be minimal, if any.   I mean, what percentage of the CL stunt community has their FAA number on their model? 

[FLOYD CARTER]

I think the Atlanta Super Bowl venue is 100% covered.  Would be tough for any outsider to get a drone in there.  I see that mil jets are to patrol the stadium from above, in case any private plane gets close.  We shall see.

[Dan McEntee]

  And like some one has mentioned before in this issue, I think the problem isn't the aircraft, it's the ability to take  and transmit video. Take away the forward point of view and video capabilities, and you take away the sole reason and purpose for their existence. Then they become a simple toy. They need to really regulate and license the video and FPV technology  to control the issue and that should be easy to do at the manufacturing level.
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[Frank Imbriaco]

When I joined the AMA in 1965, they were located in a leased office in the DC area. Interest in the hobby was huge, contests galore in every state, organization newsletter insert and a huge NAVY NATS.
 
Some years later, they moved to Ralston, Va . Emphasis about the same.

Then came Muncie and huge ambitions. Magazine chock full of advertisers, NATS, museum, etc. For the most part, all good.

But when the bills came , regular dues  increases and desperation to fill the coffers. The geniuses decided to embrace a new "segment"- let's call it that knowing that it's never been or will be true model aviation. The membership sounded the alarm, but it was met with indifference. After all, attrition will wipe out that group and the younger commercial and recreational drone guys will fill in by the 10s of thousands.

That hasn't happened and never will.

[Garf]

The AMA has embraced a group that is capable of totally destroying the AMA and aeromodeling as we know it in the name of greed. The first time there is a collision with a drone that takes down a passenger plane with fatalities, it is all over but the screaming. I would hold the people at the AMA personally responsible for the aftermath. A change of leadership is needed. 

[John Rist]

First it was RC and now drones that the U-control community clams is killing  our sport.  If all there was left in the word of model aviation was U-control their would be no model aviation.  So chill out and be glad that their is other forms of model aviation to pay the bills.  I am glad I don't need a buggy whip.  They seem to be scarce.  Fortunately still lots of U-control stuff is still available.   

[Doug Burright]

Chill out? ! For crying out loud, chilling out, and doing nothing is just exactly how people become a skidmark in history, oppressed by the group that pushes harder for an agenda that runs over the group who sits, and does nothing to preserve a long- standing tradition!
The AMA thinks it can corral and control the drone group, but it's blatantly obvious that the drone group does not care, or remains ignorant of how to comply, or become part of the group who has had a great, long lasting relationship with the community and the government.
The AMA's inability to show the government, and the community, that the drone group is in compliance, I believe the government will come in and squash all of model aviation, including drones. Look at the first attempt by the FAA to enforce models; which was in response to the drone problem. Registration. That produced "outlaws",  that didn't want to be controlled. If the AMA continues to try to include drones in it's lobbying organization, the government will see that it has failed, and will take steps to remove model aviation from the threat to the public, which it is perceived of now, or will be, if drones actually do cause some terrible incident, God forbid!
Letting sleeping dogs lie, is not how the model aviation community should respond to the threat that drones present to modeling. We should distance ourselves from the drone group, to show that they operate outside of our sphere of aviation, and that their actions are not condoned by the majority of the modeling community. If we chill out, the government will surely freeze all of model aviation.

[Doug Burright]

Let's be honest, drone operators who provide services to law enforcement, farmers and ranchers, and the drone group who fly in accordance with the established rules, are not the ones who are causing the government to examine and regulate our hobby.
Again, it is the few who will spoil it for the many. Too bad that the government won't see it that way, since the AMA feels it must provide a voice for the drone group.

[Tom Vieira]

perhaps they could take a lesson from NAR (National Association of Rocketry)...?

you can buy estes motors pretty much anywhere.  but if you want High Power motors (defined by both the NFPA and FAA), you need to present a license from NAR (or Tripoli) in addition to your driver's license?

make the tiny 4" drones available to anyone.  if you want a "real" one, you need to get it from a licensed dealer that will only sell to licensed individuals?  something like that would probably mean further FAA regulation, however....

[Brett Buck]

perhaps they could take a lesson from NAR (National Association of Rocketry)...?

you can buy estes motors pretty much anywhere.  but if you want High Power motors (defined by both the NFPA and FAA), you need to present a license from NAR (or Tripoli) in addition to your driver's license?

    Since you mentioned it, as far as I can tell, the NAR has absolutely no position on these FAA rules and appears to think it won't apply to them regardless. I have an email in to Hochheimer asking them what their reasoning might be, because I can't see why they might think that.


    Brett

[Tom Vieira]

a model rocket isn't a UAS, there are no moveable control surfaces, interaction with the ground, etc etc.....  now a rocket glider would absolutely be a UAS.  the only form of avionics we fly are altimeters and chute deployment.

we also file NOTAM's, per FAA rules for any high power launches.

low power rockets are defined by  14 CFR 101.22, high power by 14 CFR 101.25

NFPA1127 also applies to rocketry as well.

although, airspace restrictions only apply to high power, low or mid power.  it's weird.

and that many low power rockets can fly just as high as some of the smaller high power birds.  but, it's purely a matter of stored energy and mass.  if something bad happens with a high power rocket, it's an ever so slightly bigger deal than a kid flying his alpha with an A8 motor....

[Tom Vieira]

I should say, an rc rocket glider would be a UAS...

and, luckily, nobody has been stupid enough to try and "arm" a model rocket that we know of.  nor have they tried to make a guided rocket.  there is one guy out that using an active stability system to make a SpaceX style rocket, which is pretty freakin' cool.  but active stability via thrust vectoring is way different than guidance.

[Jim Kraft]

Since free flight models are limited to 400 feet, rockets would be also. It does not matter whether they are controlled or not under the rules. As long as it is not controlled from within it is drone. Whether free flight or R/C.

If you ask FAA whether control line comes under the rules, they only give the rules. If it fly's and is not controlled from within it is a drone and comes under the FAA rules if it is over 8 ounces. You will not get any other answer from them.

[Tom Vieira]

the FAA routinely accepts and files our NOTAM's with hard ceilings up to 15,000+ feet without any issues....  AMA needs to speak to NAR about how to play nice as a CBO to get what they want?

We get left alone...  but then again, the overwhelming number of rockets are kits, so that keeps some of the "riff raff" out   and I can't think of a high power rocket that is an ARF or RTF....

here's a link to more rules and regs....  https://www.nar.org/find-a-local-club/section-guidebook/laws-regulations/

[Brett Buck]

a model rocket isn't a UAS, there are no moveable control surfaces, interaction with the ground, etc etc.....  now a rocket glider would absolutely be a UAS.  the only form of avionics we fly are altimeters and chute deployment.

we also file NOTAM's, per FAA rules for any high power launches.

low power rockets are defined by  14 CFR 101.22, high power by 14 CFR 101.25

NFPA1127 also applies to rocketry as well.

although, airspace restrictions only apply to high power, low or mid power.  it's weird.

and that many low power rockets can fly just as high as some of the smaller high power birds.  but, it's purely a matter of stored energy and mass.  if something bad happens with a high power rocket, it's an ever so slightly bigger deal than a kid flying his alpha with an A8 motor....

        Well, I see nothing like that in the authorization, and, the FAA has said at many times that FF models are not exempt. >5.5 ounces and it goes in the air, it's a UAS. That's certainly what their field guide says.

   I am very well aware of the previous law with respect to rocketry, but this appears to be a new era.

     Brett

[Tom Vieira]

        Well, I see nothing like that in the authorization, and, the FAA has said at many times that FF models are not exempt. >5.5 ounces and it goes in the air, it's a UAS. That's certainly what their field guide says.

   I am very well aware of the previous law with respect to rocketry, but this appears to be a new era.

     Brett

and we circle to FAR 101, which governs rocketry and a couple others...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/101.25#b_7_ii

the way the new authorization act sucks, but so far, they've left rocketry alone....  again, the FAA regularly permits us to fly high and fast!

[Tom Vieira]

which leads to issues due to the FAA act, which seems to conflict with this, which all sucks...

going back to superbowl and drones....

drones are a pain, mainly because of big box stores selling these, not informing people of the laws and regs, which causes problems for everyone....

[Jim Kraft]

400 feet and 100 mph is the new law. Australia has had this law in place and had to curtail all SAM events because they can not get authorization to fly past the 400 foot altitude. I am sure Rockets come under the same rule if they weigh more than 8 ounces.

They are making no exceptions to that rule. It use to be a guide line, now it is a hard and fast law. Unless your rocket fly's less than 100 mph and does not go over 400 feet, you are breaking the law and are subject to a fine of up to $27,000. Who will be the first? They can also confiscate all your models and equipment.

But the AMA says there are some good things in the new laws. But I have not seen any. And they do not say what those good things are, just there are some.

[Tom Vieira]

just telling you guys that the rocket folk are apparently getting away with murder on this one somehow....  breaking mach 1 isn't exactly tough....  my high power club was granted a NOTAM this past weekend for highpower with a 10K AGL ceiling and a K motor limit.  though, we had to scrub due to weather.

[Jim Kraft]

Interesting. I wonder if the SAM guys here will be able to do the same. Do you have to have FAA registration on your rockets?

[Tom Vieira]

Interesting. I wonder if the SAM guys here will be able to do the same. Do you have to have FAA registration on your rockets?

nope.....  pretty interesting thread I started on the NAR FB page about this as well...  Jay Marsh, AMA VP DIV seems to think FAR101 still stands as the law of the land....

[Doug Burright]

So... With the AMA trying to bring the drone contingent under it's auspices, the government will smash all of the model airplane hobby under one hammer, because they will look at it as one problem, not a splinter of the tree.

The AMA is basically a lobbying organization for the modeling hobby, to the government. AMA actually has made good things happen, when the desired outcome was known. With the expansion of drone capabilities, the AMA needs to back away from trying to adopt that crazy step-child. The drone group must also push to become their own entity, under the watchful eye of the government and the public. Special Interest Groups have been included in the AMA, but they follow the guidelines prescribed by both parties. The boat was not rocked, and the federal government did not have to intercede, to protect the public or the hobby.