General Electric Discussions Talk about topics related to e-powered RC flying

AMA vs FAA...

Old 12-11-2010, 01:39 PM
  #51  
Murocflyer
WAA-08 Pilot #1
 
Murocflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Edwards AFB, CA
Posts: 7,044
Default

Here is the part that has me concerned about what the FAA is thinking. I am citing this document here:

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...FACT_Sheet.pdf

The FAA’s Role: Safety First

The FAA’s main concern about UAS operations in the National Airspace System (NAS) is safety. It is critical that these aircraft do not endanger other users of the NAS or compromise the safety of persons or property on the ground.

Recreational use of the NAS is covered by AC 91-57 which generally limits operations to below 400 feet above ground level and away from airports and air traffic.

Bold added by me. The FAA already considers recreational use of RC planes to be limited to 400 feet. It doesn't seem like a stretch to make that a regulation vs. an advisory.

I have a bad feeling that we, the recreational park flyer is going to be lumped into the same bucket as the rest of the commercial and "monitoring" agencies when these new FAA laws take effect. And as we know, sometimes the concerns of a few (us RC pilots) are often overlooked for the needs on the many. I just hope we are keeping this in the back of our minds as things progress.

Frank
Murocflyer is offline  
Old 12-11-2010, 02:56 PM
  #52  
starcad
Model Designer
 
starcad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Tucson, Az
Posts: 584
Default

Well, after reading this I really don't think we have to much to worry about. Seems FAA is just as messed up as any and all the government offices have been the last several years. They'll just loose track of all the model aircraft in the U.S.
"The chairman of the Senate subcommittee overseeing aviation said Friday he would recommend holding congressional hearings on aircraft registration after The Associated Press reported the Federal Aviation Administration was missing data on one-third of U.S. planes."

Here is a link to the full article http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=13649869
starcad is offline  
Old 12-11-2010, 03:10 PM
  #53  
starcad
Model Designer
 
starcad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Tucson, Az
Posts: 584
Default

Frank I happen to agree with most of your points in that I believe a structured training program should be initiated where by people wanting to learn to fly models should achieve specific levels. I've often wondered why the AMA hasn't considered such a program. Of course I also believe that anyone purchasing a computer should be required to take a "computer 101" course before they are allowed to purchase a computer.

Of course, all of this just boils down to common sense and it seems there is not much of that around lately.

Guy
starcad is offline  
Old 12-11-2010, 03:24 PM
  #54  
Murocflyer
WAA-08 Pilot #1
 
Murocflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Edwards AFB, CA
Posts: 7,044
Default

Originally Posted by starcad View Post
Well, after reading this I really don't think we have to much to worry about. Seems FAA is just as messed up as any and all the government offices have been the last several years. They'll just loose track of all the model aircraft in the U.S.
"The chairman of the Senate subcommittee overseeing aviation said Friday he would recommend holding congressional hearings on aircraft registration after The Associated Press reported the Federal Aviation Administration was missing data on one-third of U.S. planes."

Here is a link to the full article http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=13649869
This latest FAA happenings is not helping our cause. I'm afraid even more regualtion may come down now that they are getting Congress involved in their business. It's easy to paint everyone with a braod brush. I just hope we are active enough to not let that happen.

Frank
Murocflyer is offline  
Old 12-11-2010, 03:25 PM
  #55  
Saddlebum
The Old Guy Returneth...
Thread Starter
 
Saddlebum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Western Massachusetts
Posts: 724
Default

Just for fun, I loaned my EagleTree altimeter to a few of my club members to see just how high they fly.

Most thought they were well under the 400 foot limit and because we fly within 3 miles of a private airport we really try to keep it low (spotters advise to pull'em down anytime a full scale is sighted).

Well guess what? EVERY pattern plane, most 90 and larger 3D planes, many scale fighters and EVERY sailplane was over 400 feet!

When you watch that pattern plane do a vertical climb for a hammerhead, they are at 500-600 feet at the top!

I'd love to see altimeters on every entry in the Nats. Five will get you ten at least half those models exceed the 400 foot "limit".

This 400 foot limit, to me, is starting to look like the 65mph "speed limit" on Interstates. It's more of a "suggestion" than an actual upper limit.

...The Bum
Saddlebum is offline  
Old 12-11-2010, 07:18 PM
  #56  
kyleservicetech
Super Contributor
 
kyleservicetech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 8,952
Default

Originally Posted by Saddlebum View Post
Just for fun, I loaned my EagleTree altimeter to a few of my club members to see just how high they fly.

Most thought they were well under the 400 foot limit and because we fly within 3 miles of a private airport we really try to keep it low (spotters advise to pull'em down anytime a full scale is sighted).

Well guess what? EVERY pattern plane, most 90 and larger 3D planes, many scale fighters and EVERY sailplane was over 400 feet!

When you watch that pattern plane do a vertical climb for a hammerhead, they are at 500-600 feet at the top!

I'd love to see altimeters on every entry in the Nats. Five will get you ten at least half those models exceed the 400 foot "limit".

This 400 foot limit, to me, is starting to look like the 65mph "speed limit" on Interstates. It's more of a "suggestion" than an actual upper limit.

...The Bum
Did the same with my 150% 65 inch "Electrostreak" last year. After a reasonable climb out, the altimeter showd 970 feet. And it really was not that high.

Many years ago, I worked with a group of modelers that did cross country racing with giant sailplanes, wingspan on the order of 14 feet. We had restrictions for full size planes in our entire 45 mile course. One full size sail plane wandered into our no fly zone. The organizers contacted the field where the full size sail plane came from. We found out later that the full size sail plane found several of the model sailplanes were at 5900 feet.

Yes, these models were "specked out". Take your eyes off of them, and you've lost your model.
kyleservicetech is offline  
Old 12-13-2010, 03:00 AM
  #57  
starcad
Model Designer
 
starcad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Tucson, Az
Posts: 584
Default

Humm! This is the time of year I like to ah, Spring Clean. While rumbling through some of my old papers I came across my old training manual for the mine project I did several years ago. Thumbing through, it looks like a regular pilot training manual. No wonder the government and the tribe approved the program. We got the money and I did the training. Man, I really put those poor guys through a heck of a work out. I called the team coordinator today and found out the of the 10 people I trained, eight are still flying R/C after 6 years on there days off and at the mine when they have down time. Of the eight, three have trained others to fly. Guess that was a good program after all.
starcad is offline  
Old 12-13-2010, 05:23 AM
  #58  
Rockin Robbins
Super Contributor
 
Rockin Robbins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: DeLand, FL
Posts: 1,883
Default

Originally Posted by starcad View Post
Frank I happen to agree with most of your points in that I believe a structured training program should be initiated where by people wanting to learn to fly models should achieve specific levels. I've often wondered why the AMA hasn't considered such a program. Of course I also believe that anyone purchasing a computer should be required to take a "computer 101" course before they are allowed to purchase a computer.

Of course, all of this just boils down to common sense and it seems there is not much of that around lately.

Guy
That's the problem: people thinking that requiring common sense makes any sense at all. Whatever happened to the land of the free? People following common sense don't need to be required to do anything. Those who are dangerous to themselves and others will no follow any rules "requiring" them to behave anyway. Where's all that carnage that they think they're eliminating anyway? It's just a bunch of stuffed shirts who get off on controlling other people's lives unnecessarily. The ones who need to be controlled is THEM!
Rockin Robbins is offline  
Old 12-13-2010, 05:09 PM
  #59  
starcad
Model Designer
 
starcad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Tucson, Az
Posts: 584
Default

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins View Post
That's the problem: people thinking that requiring common sense makes any sense at all. Whatever happened to the land of the free? People following common sense don't need to be required to do anything. Those who are dangerous to themselves and others will no follow any rules "requiring" them to behave anyway. Where's all that carnage that they think they're eliminating anyway? It's just a bunch of stuffed shirts who get off on controlling other people's lives unnecessarily. The ones who need to be controlled is THEM!
Yeah! I'll go along with your there on that thought and push it a step farther. There are those people that just can't stand it when someone else is having fun and they are left out. Case in point, I was at my local park having a blast flying a slow park flier. When I landed some buffoon on a bike rode over and said he was from parks and rec. Then told me that I wasn't allowed to fly my plane in the park. There was a regulation that said no aircraft could be operated inside the park. I asked him to quote me the Reg. Well, he couldn't so I quoted it to him. It became very apparent he was generalizing all aircraft and lumping models in with full scale. After realizing the error in his way, he explained that it looked like I was having fun and that the always wanted to try flying R/C however he lacked the confidence of building and flying models. He rode off on his bike shaking his head.

No one but my brother and myself were at the park that morning. We both use over 40 years of flying models and a lot of common sense acting as spotters when the other flies. There was no reason for this buffoon to engage us with his words other than to spoil our day of having fun as I'm sure he was having fun riding his bike along the bike path.

I continue to fly at my local ghetto park and have had the sheriff along with other parks and rec people watch, none saying a word about some regulation.

Just another Stiffed Shirt that was not having fun trying to make it so others couldn't have fun.
starcad is offline  
Old 12-18-2010, 04:23 PM
  #60  
Murocflyer
WAA-08 Pilot #1
 
Murocflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Edwards AFB, CA
Posts: 7,044
Default

Saw this posted elsewhere and thought it important to share this here:

For me, some of this don't apply...I don't have any huge models and none with turbines. I would have an issue with the 400 foot limit. For those with gliders/sailplanes, you can get up to 400 feet quickly. And the 100 mph speed limit, I have a few models that will do over a 100 mph.
So, lets say this goes over. And just how is the FAA gonna police this? Put limiters on speed controls? Satellite surveillance?
Don't know about anybody else but I'm going to continue to fly like I always have. If I go over 400 feet or go faster than 100 mph, oh well!

Lucky...


And a response:



We need to do whatever it takes to make sure this does not go through.

We can't operate turbines at our field. Runway is too short, grass, and we have too many houses nearby. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean our club will sit idly by and allow a turbine ban to pass. Our brothers in the southwest who have long paved runways and hundreds of acres of desert to fly over have every right to do so. Those few guys down there do not have political clout to stop this. But *WE* as in, everyone who's ever flown a model, have a lot of power as long as we act as a group.

If we all take the attitude of "Oh well, this won't change my flying." we will find one day that there is a rule that DOES change our flying and no one is left to argue about it.

Look at firearms.. Ban machine guns, sure makes sense. Ban short barrels, high capacity magazines, bayonet lugs, well ok, I don't use that stuff anyway. Ban flash hiders, hollow point bullets, collapsible stocks, ok, now we're just getting silly. Before long all that will be legal is hunting rifles and revolvers. And that's the way it was going too before people wised up. Now most gun owners will fight for EVERY gun right, no matter if it applies to them or not. And that's the way it should be for model aviation.

-Jay
Murocflyer is offline  
Old 12-19-2010, 11:05 PM
  #61  
Murocflyer
WAA-08 Pilot #1
 
Murocflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Edwards AFB, CA
Posts: 7,044
Default

Saw this posted on RCG's sister site.

On Wednesday the AMA and JPO conducted a webinar to discuss the current state of the FAA sUAS regulation process. I believe that there were approximately 56 JPO members who attended the webinar. It was interesting and informative so I thought that I’d post some of my impressions from attending.

AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs Representative, Rich Hanson was the main presenter for most of the webinar and gave a Powerpoint presentation of the process and results thus far. There were some audio problems early in the webinar, but I was able to get the jest of what he was presenting. After his presentation, Dave Mathewson, the AMA President, took questions from the attendees and he and Rich answered them. The webinar closed with a few comments from the JPO president, Keith Severs.
I believe that Keith is going to post the Powerpoint presentation and the audio from the webinar on the JPO site. For me, the question and answer period was the most interesting so my comments are mostly related to that.

One of the first questions was about the small number of jet modelers vs. the total number of AMA members and if the AMA might “cut us loose” if you will, in order to save restrictions on the rest of the AMA membership. Both Dave and Rich stated that this was not in any way in the AMA plans and they talked about “no modeler left behind.” I was convinced of their sincere desire to work hard continue to allow all types of modeling to continue to operate as before. In fact, there was discussions of the safe operations of model aircraft for the past 75 years and a position of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” There were also several mentions of our turbine waiver program being held up, by both the AMA and the FAA, as a very positive safety program.

I asked a question regarding the latest articles from Rich and Dave, in MA and other places, that seemed to indicate that the process wasn’t going well. Dave discussed the lag between when he writes a column for the magazine and when it comes out, and the fact that when some of those columns were written, the process wasn’t going well – partly due to turnover in the FAA UAPO. Both he and Rich stated that things are going better these days and that the conversations are currently ongoing and more constructive. It appears that the FAA does not what to get into the business of regulating model aircraft and would prefer that the AMA does it. It does appear though, that they will insist on input into the rules that AMA uses to do that.

Originally, the proposal from the ARC for the sUAS regulation contained a “default” path that recreational models could take to operate without being under the “community-based” (i.e., AMA) rules. This “default” path had some serious restrictions in it concerning model weight, power, and maximum operating altitude. Rich stated that the current discussions from the FAA indicate that this path might be going away. Thus, a recreational modeler will have two paths to operate, one is follow the rules as if they were operating an sUAS, and the other is to operate under AMA rules. This second path would not require that a person join AMA, but that they follow the AMA rules. There was some discussion that there might be a “cost” for a non-AMA member to access those rules, but I didn’t understand exactly how that might work.

I asked about pressure from sUAS companies and if that was influencing the process. Rich indicated that was not the case and that the FAA was committed to maintaining a clear line between commercial and recreational use. He pointed out that you can see that now as commercial use has effectively been banned by the FAA since 2006 while we still continue to operate as before. However, he indicated that there is a significant amount of money and political influence in the sUAS community and that can not be ignored.

Rich was asked what possible restriction might be the toughest nut to crack, and his response, after some thought, was “altitude.” He reiterated that the FAA’s intent in writing AC 91-57 back in 1981, was that model aircraft should be operated under 400’ everywhere. The AMA’s interpretation of that has been 400’ within 3 miles of an airport. I have also heard the same opinion in my conversations with folks in the UAPO. Somehow that difference is going to have to be resolved before the FAA “approves” the AMA standards. I didn’t hear much about how that resolution will be approached, but there was acknowledgement that a 400’ ceiling is not acceptable and affects almost all model aircraft activities. Personally, I think the process of “see and avoid”(which is the FAA’s own terminology) is key to that and its worked for years and should continue to do so. I believe that there might be some additional requirements for spotters for higher altitude operations, but that would have little effect on jet modelers as we all use spotters routinely.

The question was asked if jet meets at airports might be banned. I believe that Rich said that he didn’t think so, but that a different approval process might be involved. Rich did discuss the FAA rule that an airport that receives federal money can not be closed for a non-aviation event (and the FAA had deemed model airplane flyins as non-aviation), but that’s old news to the jet community and we’re already working around that. There was a discussion of the collision in Colorado between the full-scale and the model, but it seems as if there were a number of factors that separated this incident from AMA sanctioned operations that the impact from that incident might not be too great.

There was much talk of the FPV incident in NYC recently and the general consensus was that guy is a (known) jacka$$. There was some discussion that the incident has had some repercussions for operations at Floyd Bennet Field, I hope that the AMA steps in and helps everyone realize that this was not the actions of any member of our community and was totally against the AMA rules – thus responsible modelers should not be punished for the actions of this foreign trouble maker.

Both Dave and Rich seemed to indicate that right now, the discussions with the FAA appear to be going in a constructive direction. We should allow that process to continue and see what the final result is. We don’t want to put additional pressure on the process, via calling our elected officials, etc. because it could cause the process to become adversarial at this time. However, Dave said that the AMA is actively making preparations for a campaign (lobbying, publicity, etc.) should a legislative relief measure become necessary.

In general, this was a very positive presentation and I left convinced that the AMA is being very proactive and doing the right things at this time to preserve all aspects of our hobby. The time might come when the membership is needed to help in efforts to avoid onerous restrictions, but that time does not appear to be here right now. I’m optimistic that, through the AMA and JPO’s efforts, this will not be necessary...

And some additional info by the poster:

this is a good update i was on the call also some other info

1 the ama sent the ama safety code to the faa as it is for our rules

2 ama feels you will be able to fly anything you are flying today if they try and cut any type racing/jet/gaint they will fight no modeler left behind

3 some repercussions for operations at Floyd Bennet Field the meeting in jan with FAA is the repercussions

4 the faa likes the tubine waiver program and the over weight gaint programs there was some talk about a gaint scale waiver program ama is trying to get rules passed without it but if they come back and the faa asks for it then the ama will make one

5 the turnover at the FAA UAS postions are out of control when someone gets hired a privite company hires them of a lot for money and the people the ama are dealing with are always changing
Murocflyer is offline  
Old 12-21-2010, 05:50 PM
  #62  
fmw
Member
 
fmw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 160
Default

We have way too much government. Way, way, way too much.
fmw is offline  
Old 12-26-2010, 08:36 PM
  #63  
dbcisco
Like to build 'em
 
dbcisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,765
Default

The scariest documented suggestion from the AMA (the released ARC Document) was to force everyone to join the AMA or not fly period. Yes, that is correct. AMA wanted to eliminate the provisions for non-AMA members (section 3).
More like the AMA is looking to make a buck with recruiting a ton of new members and stab all non-AMA flyers in the back.

As for AC 91-57, yes, it is a suggestion, much like yield signs at an intersection. When people ignore the yield sign for 40 years and cause a handful of accidents are you surprised that they take the yield sign down and put up a stop sign?

The AMA has been the biggest violator of our "yield sign" and has thumbed their nose at the FAA for 40 years. Do you think they have any credibility with the FAA? I hope not.

One set of reasonable rules for everyone, no breaks for the AMA is my position. BTW, I am an AMA member, but I put equal rights first.
dbcisco is offline  
Old 12-26-2010, 09:33 PM
  #64  
Murocflyer
WAA-08 Pilot #1
 
Murocflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Edwards AFB, CA
Posts: 7,044
Default

Originally Posted by dbcisco View Post
The scariest documented suggestion from the AMA (the released ARC Document) was to force everyone to join the AMA or not fly period. Yes, that is correct. AMA wanted to eliminate the provisions for non-AMA members (section 3).

Can you provide a link to that? I must have missed that.

Thanks,

Frank
Murocflyer is offline  
Old 12-26-2010, 10:09 PM
  #65  
Murocflyer
WAA-08 Pilot #1
 
Murocflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Edwards AFB, CA
Posts: 7,044
Default

Had some time on my hands and I reviewed the ARC in question.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/faa/recommendations.pdf/

Clearly it shows that the AMA is taking the lead to help protect all modelers not just AMA members. Just like the NRA is helping to protect the rights of all gun owners, whether they are NRA members or not, the AMA is doing the same for model aviation.

If I misinterpreted that, please let me know because that differs from the opinion of the above poster. I do not think I have since I have read a number of different folks saying the same thing but I am open to comments.

Frank
Murocflyer is offline  
Old 12-26-2010, 10:52 PM
  #66  
crxmanpat
Community Moderator
 
crxmanpat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,906
Default

dbcisco,

Because of your postings, I have read the ARC in question several times now. Under Section 2, nowhere does it say that an aeromodeler be required to join a community-based organization in order to fly (if you continue to believe it does, please point out the specific language where it states so). It only says flight operations can be conducted if they are following an accepted set of standards and guidelines set forth by a community-based organiztion, such as the AMA.

Why do you continue to beat this dead horse? The AMA is not out to force all modelers to join the AMA. Frank said it best with his corellation to the NRA. They are there to protect the rights of gun owners, members of the NRA or not. Same is true for the AMA.
crxmanpat is offline  
Old 12-26-2010, 11:58 PM
  #67  
dbcisco
Like to build 'em
 
dbcisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,765
Default

AMA recommendation top of page six, "Eliminate section 3 in its entirity". Section 3 is the provisions for flying outside the AMA (the only FAA recognized CBO in the entire document).
That suggestion would require everyone flying anything recreationally to be a member of the AMA. Pretty sleazy suggestion IMHO. Great way for an organization that has been loosing members to increase their membership and significantly multiply their $10M/yr revenue.
dbcisco is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 12:05 AM
  #68  
dbcisco
Like to build 'em
 
dbcisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,765
Default

crxmanpat, how could you miss it? it's the first paragraph:

"2.1 Applicability
Model Aircraft operations that are conducted in accordance with an FAA accepted set of standards established and administered by a community based association as discussed in Section 2.2, shall otherwise be exempt from the requirements of any Special Federal Airworthiness Regulation (SFAR) that results from this recommendation as long as they are operated by:...."

Eliminating section 3 would mean that only section 2 exists which would mean that only AMA members can fly and further that they are exempt from any FAA regulations.
dbcisco is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 12:05 AM
  #69  
crxmanpat
Community Moderator
 
crxmanpat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,906
Default

Oops, missed last post. See my next.
crxmanpat is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 12:10 AM
  #70  
crxmanpat
Community Moderator
 
crxmanpat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,906
Default

Originally Posted by dbcisco View Post
crxmanpat, how could you miss it? it's the first paragraph:

"2.1 Applicability
Model Aircraft operations that are conducted in accordance with an FAA accepted set of standards established and administered by a community based association as discussed in Section 2.2, shall otherwise be exempt from the requirements of any Special Federal Airworthiness Regulation (SFAR) that results from this recommendation as long as they are operated by:...."

Eliminating section 3 would mean that only section 2 exists which would mean that only AMA members can fly and further that they are exempt from any FAA regulations.
You're entirely missing the point of the 1st paragraph. It states that you only have to follow an FAA accepted set of standards establish and administered by a CBA. It DOES NOT mean that in order to follow those standards you must be a member of the AMA.

Why can't you see that?
crxmanpat is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 12:13 AM
  #71  
dbcisco
Like to build 'em
 
dbcisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,765
Default

"The AMA is not out to force all modelers to join the AMA."
Yes it is.

"They are there to protect the rights of gun owners, members of the NRA or not. Same is true for the AMA."

The AMA does not do anything for anyone but AMA members.

Am I the only AMA member who can read English. That one recommendation in the ARC shows exactly what the current AMA leadership is all aout. They would love to force mandatory AMA membership on everyone. Proven by their own officially documented words. Doesn't get much clearer than that.
dbcisco is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 12:17 AM
  #72  
dbcisco
Like to build 'em
 
dbcisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,765
Default

Originally Posted by crxmanpat View Post
It states that you only have to follow an FAA accepted set of standards establish and administered by a CBA.
What other CBO is there besides the AMA? The FAA couldn't think of any because they keep saying "such as the AMA".
Administered by..., only through membership can the AMA administer anything.

Why do you twist everything to protect the AMA?

Why were they so dead set on eliminating section 3 in the first place? Becase that would allow non-members to fly.

Last edited by dbcisco; 12-27-2010 at 12:32 AM.
dbcisco is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 12:56 AM
  #73  
crxmanpat
Community Moderator
 
crxmanpat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,906
Default

You don't have to be a member of the AMA to follow their guidelines. A perfect example of that is Thude Park in Chandler, AZ. The AMA was instrumental in getting this park designated for RC flying. Their Flying Site Rules were a big part of the city granting the permission.

But guess what? You don't have to be an AMA member to fly there. Nor is there any established club there. All you have to do is follow the AMA standards and guidelines. Same as it states in Section 2 of the ARC.

It really is that simple.
crxmanpat is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 01:02 AM
  #74  
Murocflyer
WAA-08 Pilot #1
 
Murocflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Edwards AFB, CA
Posts: 7,044
Default

Originally Posted by dbcisco View Post
AMA recommendation top of page six, "Eliminate section 3 in its entirity". Section 3 is the provisions for flying outside the AMA (the only FAA recognized CBO in the entire document).
That suggestion would require everyone flying anything recreationally to be a member of the AMA. Pretty sleazy suggestion IMHO. Great way for an organization that has been loosing members to increase their membership and significantly multiply their $10M/yr revenue.
You are interpreting that incorrectly. Keep in mind, the AMA does not want to have the FAA enforce rules on any modeler, whether they are AMA members or not.

Read the Alternate rationale in yellow on top of page 6. They are trying to convince the FAA that we do not want prohibitive rules for modelers.

See this here: http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/FAAARCFAQs8.pdf

Section 3 of the ARC recommendations would seem to create a situation where modelers wishing to have more latitude in their modeling activity are encourage to join a
community-based organization such as the AMA, why is AMA opposed to this two-path approach and the limitations outlined in Section 3? (Added 7/24/09)

AMA opposes Section 3 impart because we feel many of the restrictions are onerous and unrealistic. More importantly, however, AMA is opposed to the two path/dual standard approach this creates. We feel this approach is totally unmanageable and has the potential for impacting our members by default. This would almost certainly be the case at locations where both AMA members and non AMA members fly, and it is foreseeable that other land use authorities could impose the stricter guidelines found in Section 3 with thoughts that this would be a more conservative safer approach.

AMA would prefer to see a single set of guidelines managed by a community-based organization that establishes the standards for all of model aviation. AMA is actively developing a
comprehensive set of model aviation guidelines from its current safety standards for submittal to the FAA and hopefully acceptance and approval before the sUAS SFAR becomes a reality in 2011.

This may sound to some like the Academy is trying to force all modelers to join the AMA. Certainly AMA believes there is strength in numbers and the health and welfare of the hobby
undoubtedly depends upon the presence of a strong national organization that can speak for and advocate the interests of the aeromodeling community. But, forcing modelers to join the AMA is by no means the intent of the Academy’s approach to the sUAS rulemaking. AMA’s sole aim is to work through this issue that has been somewhat forced upon us, and achieve an end result that allows the modelers to continue to enjoy the hobby in much the same way as they have in the past.


So no need to be concerned. The AMA is not the big bad ogre that some make it out to be. You can rest assured that they are doing their best to make sure we can enjoy our sport as we have been doing all along. That's of course if we do not become collateral damage if the FAA gets their way.

Frank
Murocflyer is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 01:13 AM
  #75  
dbcisco
Like to build 'em
 
dbcisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,765
Default

Section 3 was too restrictive so remove it completely?

How about work towards reasonable rules for everyone?

Please explain how the AMA will "administer" its own rules to non-members?

I don't think you understand what the gov't means by "administer".

Sorry, have seen too many nasty things done by the AMA to trust them or beleive a single word coming from anyone in Muncie.
dbcisco is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.

Page generated in 0.12342 seconds with 14 queries