Will flying models exist in the future for us?

[Mike Griffin]

The last paragraph in this article is the one that really hit me as far as future impact on our hobby.  Also the context in which they used the word "hobbyist" as it relates to these things is not good.  I honestly don't know what the future of legitimate flying models holds for us with the increasing irresponsible and senseless actions like these.

Mike



http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/whos-flying-drones-over-bangor-submarine-base-navy-wants-to-know/

[pat king]

I believe that C/L will survive this, we have survived R/C and ARFs. The general direction things are going with UAS should scare our brothers flying R/C and the AMA. The AMA has decided the best thing they can do is embrace UAS. Let us hope it is not the ruin of the AMA. This kind of stupidity is not helping us.
The DOD takes incursions into their airspace seriously. They are undoubtedly working hard on being able to electronically disable UAS. If they catch the fools doing these kind of things the "pilots" will spend time in Federal prison. If the pilots are dumb enough to trespass onto Federal reservations they may well be shot. NAS Alameda was at the other end of the island I grew up on. People (kids) were sneaking into a damaged aircraft area near one fence, one night a kid got shot in the legs with a 12ga. tracer round by a Marine guard when he didn't halt.

Pat

[Chris McMillin]

The whole problem is cameras and FPV. Since I'm a pilot, maybe, I've never seen the excitement nor have been interested. I do see people at the field flying them without a spotter, which is expressly against the AMA code. These were both young and old and model fixed wings and quadcopters. Of course, all quadcopters drones with cameras are flown out of site by their owners most of the time because that is the neat thing to do. This goes against everything model airplane pilots have ever known and most of us would consider it an un-natural act as well as it being the very thing that upsets those not operating them. Namely, anyone that isn't a drone lover hates them and detests that they fly over their heads, property and that they have cameras.
My answer is no FPV and no cameras. No flying over houses and not out of line of site. Commercial operators could do that stuff with special training and regs.
The FAA isn't effective and shouldn't have been charged with doing this drone/UAV thing in their present form. They suck at man carrying aviation, trampling individual freedoms is their goal there and UAS definition now includes model airplane's so we're screwed, potentially.
Eliminating the camera is the key to my thought.
Chris...

[Brett Buck]

The whole problem is cameras and FPV.

   Agreed. The AMA either doesn't see it, or more likely doesn't want to see it, but drones are a *mortal threat* to model aviation. I mean that literally, in that unless we/they are very careful, the entire hobby can be legislated out of existence.

   At this point, the AMA has proven itself to be both powerless, and suicidal.

    Brett

[Steve Thompson]

Is the AMA trying to save Model Aviation, or are they trying to save themselves (the AMA)?


From the AMA Government Relations Blog:

Chad,
 the AIRR act, HR. 4441 has a very specific statement in section 441 that concerns “EVALUATION OF AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION FOR SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT.” This section calls into action the review of metrics, and further strengthening in forms of “improvements” defined is 441.c.2 . Can you tell us what exactly is the AMA doing, or advocating for as it pertains to the registration? Is it believed that this bill (HR 4441) is being put in place to alleviate the registration for model aircraft in the future?

Reply   

Chad Budreau  February 26, 2016 at 09:22

This legislation will help preserve and strengthen CBOs and the Special Rules for Model Aircraft.

Some of the key talking points we are suggesting in this House version (and in the Senate version to be released later) include better defining CBOs, tasking the FAA to acknowledge CBOs and their safety programs, expanding protections for education, and provide a better solution for the airport notification process.


So, what are the requirements to be a CBO?  Would PAMPA qualify, or may be Stunt Hangar?  Is the AMA using (and strengthening) this regulation to ensure they are the only eligible CBO, so everyone HAS TO join AMA?

[RC Storick]

In opinion this is fairly easy fix. Anywhere they don't want drones erect a tower submitting a 2.4GHZ signal Jamming the the radio and the drones are rendered ineffective.

[Mike Griffin]

   Agreed. The AMA either doesn't see it, or more likely doesn't want to see it, but drones are a *mortal threat* to model aviation. I mean that literally, in that unless we/they are very careful, the entire hobby can be legislated out of existence.

   At this point, the AMA has proven itself to be both powerless, and suicidal.

    Brett
[/quot


Brett, I agree 100%. 

Mike

[Brett Buck]

So, what are the requirements to be a CBO?  Would PAMPA qualify, or may be Stunt Hangar?  Is the AMA using (and strengthening) this regulation to ensure they are the only eligible CBO, so everyone HAS TO join AMA?

   They say otherwise, but who knows? It becomes that, de facto, since there aren't any other organizations of any consequential membership.

   I think the members would prefer the AMA to be the CBO and the notion of a "community-based organization" was originally invented by the AMA as it was a generic  cover for the Special Rule for model aviation. I think we want this, as a general principle. We would like it if instead of the FAA, we use our AMA membership and the safety code to be the rules.

   The AMA are a bit stuck between a rock and a hard place, because they know if they ignore or disavow drones, a different, larger, drone-based "CBO" would soon be formed and the AMA would no longer be the 800 lb gorilla of the NAA. But by doing so, they cannot start making distinctions between drones/quadcopters and traditional model aircraft. Its clear that they have done the math and tried to encompass drones rather than exclude them.

   PAMPA is not a likely CBO, if nothing else, PAMPA is already a subgroup of the AMA, with around 1000 members rather than 200,000. Stunthangar is a website, and if Bob started to provide insurance and require dues, they would be $150 to pay the premiums and the "membership" would drop dramatically with virtually no ability to influence anything. Note that the AMA being a more-or-less legitimate CBO, and has by far the largest membership of any of the constituents of the NAA (and by extension, the FAI, since the NAA is far and away the largest national aero club), they still appear to be utterly powerless against the FAA. If the AMA cannot influence the outcome, any much smaller group certainly won't.

    Brett

[Brett Buck]

In opinion this is fairly easy fix. Anywhere they don't want drones erect a tower submitting a 2.4GHZ signal Jamming the the radio and the drones are rendered ineffective.

  Possibly, but it's a lot harder to jam spread-spectrum signals than you might think. Not impossible, of course, and if I was the Navy I would certainly be inclined to pursue it.

   I think you would quickly run afoul of another 3-letter organization - the FCC. It is absolutely, positively, illegal to jam otherwise legal transmissions.

    Brett

[Terrence Durrill]

   Agreed. The AMA either doesn't see it, or more likely doesn't want to see it, but drones are a *mortal threat* to model aviation. I mean that literally, in that unless we/they are very careful, the entire hobby can be legislated out of existence.

   At this point, the AMA has proven itself to be both powerless, and suicidal.

    Brett

      We are looking at "big brother government" taking control of every aspect of our lives.  Today it is our beloved hobby of model aviation.  Can we afford to ignore this?

       If you don't like this and want to do something about it, click on this site for more information......you can help..             http://www.conventionofstates.com/

[Randy Powell]

I think the Navy would tell the FCC to screw off. They are very serious about security at Bangor (I live about 10 miles for Bangor). I suspect they will either pull out Sparky's solution or just give clearance to shoot them down or just track them back to the operator and put that idiot in federal prison.

[Brett Buck]

I think the Navy would tell the FCC to screw off. They are very serious about security at Bangor (I live about 10 miles for Bangor). I suspect they will either pull out Sparky's solution or just give clearance to shoot them down or just track them back to the operator and put that idiot in federal prison.

  They are already authorized to shoot them down, and have tried. They also apparently have some projects to come up with dedicated drone destroyers. I think that, or tracking them down (which they are also trying to do) is far more likely solution.

    Brett