Help Protect the RC Flying Hobby

[rifleman_btx]

Indeed, ive posted my letters again for the Senate.

[rifleman_btx]

Fortunately, no Nugget had a bad day on the flight deck during my watch.

Hell yeah! Thats a damn good thing! :Cool:

[Hardway]

Stand strong, and together, and have each other's six. Regardless, never never stop flying.....

[rifleman_btx]

Exactly, thats how it should be!

[Hardway]

As I just wrote the statement above, I found it crazy.... I have always seen the "pry it from my cold dead hands" bravado, a la Red Dawn... Obviously referring to my firearms.... But I never dreamed I would have that same kind of gut feeling for taking my damn DX-9...… Go figure...… :(:(

[rifleman_btx]

Right! I mean damn, now that my son is learning to fly, i just cringe at the bs he will most likely have to endure as the mass public keeps getting dumber and dumber by the lack of history the majority of educators are willing to teach these days. Its like nothing past 1963 is important.

[benjack71]

Everyone can get mad at me all they want. I am a pragmatic person. There is only one group of people that any regulation can be enforced upon. Those people who are in a club at a flying field. Its somewhat like the gun debate. Gun laws only affect people who are law abiding. That is why, the only viable solution for the AMA, is to plead the case for exemptions at a fixed flying site, within a community based organization. Now, we can debate what a fixed flying site is I suppose. The odds of an amendment at this juncture is very very null. This is a bill that the House and Senate have already both agreed upon. Actually at this point you would be better off trying to get the White House involved to ask for an amendment than your Senator. With that being said, going forward, an amendment to the act could occur at a later date. But, let me throw this out and yeah I will get some hate for it, but do not blame me blame the law. The FAA is going to require a test. The bill specifically says that everyone must take an FAA test, but the AMA can administer the test. Where are you going to take the test? Do you think they will send it in the mail as if its a survey? Make everyone go to Muncie? How about the non AMA members? What test will they take? How is the AMA going to administer a test? There is only one way the AMA can administer a test, that is through the clubs, probably the club safety officer designated as the proctor. The problem will occur if the FAA does not allow input from the AMA on what the test should consist of. I think, from the sound of things, they are going to let the AMA come up with a test and its going to be mostly hobby related questions. Never underestimate the bureaucracy though. The reason for pushing the fixed flying site within the AMA community AKA an AMA approved field is due to pragmatism and realism. Just because you or you or they fly in the back 40, in a vacant parking lot, in a new subdivision that is still being built, a road that does not have a lot of traffic (I have seen all of this on youtube btw) the truth is the "drone" problem, (I refuse to call a scale model airplane a drone from this point forward due to the pollution of said name) all comes from people not flying within the confines of an AMA flying site. At no time have I seen a story about a drone forcing tanker aircraft used in forest fires being grounded because of air traffic from the club field, or flying over a baseball game, or a fist fight over someone being accused of spying on wife, daughter, etc. I have not seen national news of someone shooting a drone down because its flying over there house, and the drone came from an AMA club field, not crashing into people at a sporting event or large crowd from whatever. The truth is, that none of that happens from model aircraft coming from an AMA flying site. So, you have no point of sale requirements, you have all this regulation coming. Who are you going to enforce it on? You are going to send the "officials" to the place where they know they can get a lot of contact reports. To the AMA flying field. The a$% hole who is doing the dumb stuff keeps on doing it because you can not check him or her. You cant check him and her because they are not at a fixed flying site. You have to wait for them to mess up first. So what happens when that continues? Then we all have remote id required. It could even be individual registration of models. Who gets targeted? The people at the AMA fixed flying site because the fed knows where they are at. Again, the a#@ hole goes about doing dumb stuff because that person never gets checked or laws enforced on because no one knows where they are at. This is why the AMA, has to request and push exemption on a fixed flying site and remove them selves from representing anyone who chooses to fly from any other area.

The other thing the AMA has to do, and I have seen where finally they started doing it, is get the FAA to recognize different class of models. Such as fixed wing and rotor. The AMA is basically only using weight as a classification criteria within the hobby. That is dumb. They should be able to understand the difference between a Mustang and DJI Mavic Pro. They should be able to at least see which one is causing the problem and which one is not. If the AMA can get the FAA to recognize different classes of model aircraft that could go a long way of getting the FAA off our back.

[rifleman_btx]

Nope thats not what the AMA is. If it does that it is a fail, why? Because it would be the same as in Germany with guns, and hunting. In Germany you can own all the land in the world, but you must store your guns at a gun club if you own it you still cant have it in your own home. If you want to shoot your weapons, you have to shoot at an approved by government range with range nazies who tell you you cant rapid fire while using their range. And that is total bull****. As for test it can be done on line with email notifications that means if you have ama you will get the email to take the test, and only though the email will that link be accessible with your AMA number, and specific pin number or password or whatever. Then if they plan to make that say a license to even buy an rc model, they send out a new membership card that you must present to acquire any type of aircraft. Theres many ways for them to do this that doesnt just target fixed sites. Just have to think outside the box.

[fhhuber]

People keep trying to say its a fixed wing vs rotor-craft issue.

It is not.

Its line of sight manual operation of a transmitter vs FPV and/or GPS way-point autopilots.

Fixed wing models can make the exact same dumbass incursions as quad-copters, (or any other kind of copter) and actually could more easily be destructive.

Fixed wing models were the first to exceed 8 miles from the point of launch using advanced radio systems WITHOUT the GPS autopilots, while flying FPV.

Fixed wing models were the first to be flown above a solid cloud layer, guaranteeing the operator could not possible see full scale aircraft on a potential collision course.

A fixed wing RC model meeting FAI limitations of weight, engine displacement and size CROSSED THE ATLANTIC.

Fixed wing models can now exceed the theoretical maximum airspeed possible for any quad-copter or any other type of copter.

A high speed, long range model using GPS autopilot approaches being a cruise missile.

Guess what... we have RC jet turbine fixed wing models that have larger payload capacity and longer range and can fly at higher speed than some early cruise missiles.... and with higher accuracy.

Bigger, faster, further isn't always a good thing.

Anyone flying FPV beyond line of sight from the launch point is part of the problem, regardless of what power or if its fixed wing or a rotor-craft.

Just today... some dumbass on Facebook proudly posted a video of attempting to fly his FPV fixed wing model under a bridge with active traffic. He was barely able to fly a straight line for 5 seconds... and managed to hit a tree and crash into what appeared to be a slow moving river.
consider the potential repercussions if dumbass had hit a car or caused one to swerve, creating a head on collision... on a bridge... over water..

[benjack71]

People keep trying to say its a fixed wing vs rotor-craft issue.

It is not.

Its line of sight manual operation of a transmitter vs FPV and/or GPS way-point autopilots.

Fixed wing models can make the exact same dumbass incursions as quad-copters, (or any other kind of copter) and actually could more easily be destructive.

Fixed wing models were the first to exceed 8 miles from the point of launch using advanced radio systems WITHOUT the GPS autopilots, while flying FPV.

Fixed wing models were the first to be flown above a solid cloud layer, guaranteeing the operator could not possible see full scale aircraft on a potential collision course.

A fixed wing RC model meeting FAI limitations of weight, engine displacement and size CROSSED THE ATLANTIC.

Fixed wing models can now exceed the theoretical maximum airspeed possible for any quad-copter or any other type of copter.

A high speed, long range model using GPS autopilot approaches being a cruise missile.

Guess what... we have RC jet turbine fixed wing models that have larger payload capacity and longer range and can fly at higher speed than some early cruise missiles.... and with higher accuracy.

Bigger, faster, further isn't always a good thing.

Anyone flying FPV beyond line of sight from the launch point is part of the problem, regardless of what power or if its fixed wing or a rotor-craft.

Just today... some dumbass on Facebook proudly posted a video of attempting to fly his FPV fixed wing model under a bridge with active traffic. He was barely able to fly a straight line for 5 seconds... and managed to hit a tree and crash into what appeared to be a slow moving river.
consider the potential repercussions if dumbass had hit a car or caused one to swerve, creating a head on collision... on a bridge... over water..

If you are flying from a fixed field, I would have thought that los would be assumed. I guess it was not. Furthermore, FPV would be a classification would it not?

[fhhuber]

FPV limitation would be great... but when AMA said "No FPV" they got a mass of letters complaining.

Then AMA changed to to "FPV only with a back up pilot on buddy box who can keep it within line of sight" and gt a lot of letters from people complaining that it was too restrictive.

So AMA changed it to "FPV is OK... try to keep it within range of line of sight." And people still complain that its too restrictive.

We have a pair of guys who fly FPV in our local club. We can't even get them to keep the models on the airplane side of our "no fly line" and if we mention its a bad idea to go buzz the bridge (with car traffic) 2 miles away we're being too restrictive...
(Their previous club asked them to vacate the club and can I see why...)
These guys are flying fixed wing... and can't land the planes worth a damn while flying FPV...

AMA said no GPS past line of sight... and nobody pays a damn bit of attention.

[rifleman_btx]

One more thing, when you alienate the mass for the elite, you will loose alot of membership from the AMA. That would in turn weaken any representation you would have. I seriously doubt the AMA wants to loose that revenue. As that line in The Right Stuff goes. "Its funding that makes these birds go up, no bucks, no Buckrogers."

[fhhuber]

AMA says there are rules and we are self-policing...

But try reporting one of the EC for encouraging someone to fly in violation of those rules and see where you get.

[rifleman_btx]

Anyone flying FPV beyond line of sight from the launch point is part of the problem, regardless of what power or if its fixed wing or a rotor-craft.

Just today... some dumbass on Facebook proudly posted a video of attempting to fly his FPV fixed wing model under a bridge with active traffic. He was barely able to fly a straight line for 5 seconds... and managed to hit a tree and crash into what appeared to be a slow moving river.
consider the potential repercussions if dumbass had hit a car or caused one to swerve, creating a head on collision... on a bridge... over water..

This i totally agree with, and is why i dont fly with that 433mhz transmitter modules or beyond the point i can see the model from my position. Most of the time its just like the video i posted today.. when its for fun, i dont use any automated autopilot. I tried it, and i just dont feel its safe. Too much can go wrong. I just want to know altitude and speed so i keep to the ceiling 400', and i can monitor my landing speeds. I really dont see those rules as restrictive. I love flying lower level anyway. The older i get, the more i just want to fly safe the way i want. These little ****s asking how high can it go, how far, blah blah blah... i just want to introduce them to the heel of my boot to their chest.

[fhhuber]

400 ft is not reasonable for many models.

AMA Pattern Aerobatics maneuver schedule has maneuvers that demand 800 ft from top to bottom.
IMAA/IMAC aerobatics competition needs even more.
Many turbine models have a very hard time doing a simple loop and staying under 600 ft.
RC sailplane competitions using winch launch have target launch heights of 600 or 900 ft, THEN seek thermals to go higher.

This list is not comprehensive of all times the 400 ft limit is not realistic.

[rifleman_btx]

I personally don't see keeping within line of sight in fpv a restriction. I do see it as a good thing, that should be followed as a measure of safety.

[rifleman_btx]

400 ft is not reasonable for many models.

AMA Pattern Aerobatics maneuver schedule has maneuvers that demand 800 ft from top to bottom.
IMAA/IMAC aerobatics competition needs even more.
Many turbine models have a very hard time doing a simple loop and staying under 600 ft.
RC sailplane competitions using winch launch have target launch heights of 600 or 900 ft, THEN seek thermals to go higher.

This list is not comprehensive of all times the 400 ft limit is not realistic.

I agree with this as well, my thoughts on the 400ft limit is purely for fpv application.

[Valkpilot]

400 ft is not reasonable for many models.

AMA Pattern Aerobatics maneuver schedule has maneuvers that demand 800 ft from top to bottom.
IMAA/IMAC aerobatics competition needs even more.
Many turbine models have a very hard time doing a simple loop and staying under 600 ft.
RC sailplane competitions using winch launch have target launch heights of 600 or 900 ft, THEN seek thermals to go higher.

This list is not comprehensive of all times the 400 ft limit is not realistic.

The hight rule doesn't bother me. I'm like Dusty Crophopper "low and slow".:Cool:

[boomer108]

Our flying field is inside the 3 mile radius of O'Hare Airport so we we are held to the 400 ft rule by the FAA. It doesn't bother us.

[rifleman_btx]

Well that is definitely understandable.