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

AMA vs FAA...

Old 12-27-2010, 06:00 AM
  #101  
Xptical
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Middle Georgia
Posts: 31
Default

Originally Posted by dbcisco View Post
In cases of imrisonment it would have to be bad. Like most traffic violations are ussually fines but negligent homicide (DUI fatality) goes under negligent homicide laws. Even with just the AC in effect, cause a death with a model aircraft through negligence (drinking and flying for example) and you could be looking at hard time in PA. One of my students got four years in prison when his friend was killed because he was driving DUI (.2 blood alfohol level for anyone under 21 in PA). Two beers and bad driving put him away for 4 years.

Like I said, no different than what we have today.

If you are drunk while flying right now, and you hurt someone, you'll already face criminal charges for negligent so-and-so.


In short, the FAA just doesn't have the teeth to go after people who violate any proposed rules.
Xptical is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 06:20 AM
  #102  
dbcisco
Like to build 'em
 
dbcisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,765
Default

The FAA doesn't need teeth, they make rules to follow. Hurt someone or something by wilfully violating the rules you can be looking at far more than a fine.
The rules will set the basis for negligence.
I can find places to drive my car at over 100 MPH without being caught by the cops. If I hit someone or something doing it I will probably be in court trying to stay out of prison for far more than a speeding violation because breaking the speed limit establishes negligence. It is no longer a traffic case but a criminal one.
dbcisco is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 01:23 PM
  #103  
FlyingMonkey
Flite Test Fan
 
FlyingMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 32459
Posts: 8,930
Default

FlyingMonkey is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 03:15 PM
  #104  
Murocflyer
WAA-08 Pilot #1
 
Murocflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Edwards AFB, CA
Posts: 7,044
Default

Originally Posted by FlyingMonkey View Post
Make mine a double please.

I think the takeaway from all this discussion is that for us as modelers, we need to be aware of how the FAA is trying to limit our enjoyment of the sport, even though they are not specifically targeting model aviation, we will be considered collateral damage if they do pass the new laws. Our best bet is to be kept up to date on what is going on and what, if anything, we can do to prevent any new laws that will affect us in a negative manner.

I will do my best to post any new info when I find out about it so we can stay current on any actions we might need to take.

Hopefully, this will be a non-issue for us, but these discussions have me concerned when I read what the FAA wants to do.

Frank
Murocflyer is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 03:51 PM
  #105  
idealhobbies
Super Contributor
 
idealhobbies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Milford, Delaware
Posts: 1,564
Default

Originally Posted by FlyingMonkey View Post
Exactly!

Sitting around worrying ourselves to death is not going to improve the situation, neither is all of the speculation. It's just like having that first baby, you have to sit back and wait for it to pop out. Pacing the floor all night is just going to hurry along the greying and loss of hair.

What WE ALL can do, is stay out of trouble. Incidents like the who flew his FVP around N.Y.C. and the idiots who hit the girl with the Heli and ran off do not help us at all. Especially the from Austria (our new laws won't effect him) with his FVP in an already terrorist - paranoid NYC. That gave the FAA justification for whatever actions they deem "reasonable".

In the mean time:

idealhobbies is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 04:02 PM
  #106  
FlyingMonkey
Flite Test Fan
 
FlyingMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 32459
Posts: 8,930
Default

Originally Posted by Murocflyer View Post
I think the takeaway from all this discussion is that for us as modelers, we need to be aware of how the FAA is trying to limit our enjoyment of the sport,
I'll say this, I have a problem with this view.

I doubt that mysterious members of the FAA are saying, hey, look, those guys are having too much fun, we must limit that.

If we approach the situation with this view, we'll be going in at a severe disadvantage.

The questions should be, What limitations are being proposed. WHY are the limitations being proposed? How can we show the limitations we don't agree with, are unnecessary?
FlyingMonkey is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 04:13 PM
  #107  
Murocflyer
WAA-08 Pilot #1
 
Murocflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Edwards AFB, CA
Posts: 7,044
Default

Originally Posted by FlyingMonkey View Post
I'll say this, I have a problem with this view.

I doubt that mysterious members of the FAA are saying, hey, look, those guys are having too much fun, we must limit that.

If we approach the situation with this view, we'll be going in at a severe disadvantage.

The questions should be, What limitations are being proposed. WHY are the limitations being proposed? How can we show the limitations we don't agree with, are unnecessary?
FM,

The FAA is wanting to control sUAV flights in the US. It all falls under the guise of safety. And who in the general population is going to say we do not need to be safe? Review those links I posted above to get all the pertinent info. Unfortunately, since sUAVs are model aircraft, just like we fly, we just might be collateral damage and will have to live with the new rules they make. Is this right? I do not think so, nor does the AMA. That is why they are seriously engaged in this matter.

If you don't bother reading those links posted above, then I ask you to look at this one: http://www.modelaircraft.org/news/ama-faa.aspx That should get you up to speed on what the FAA is doing.

Frank
Murocflyer is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 04:33 PM
  #108  
FlyingMonkey
Flite Test Fan
 
FlyingMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 32459
Posts: 8,930
Default

I won't deny they would put restrictions on us.

I am just saying, that claiming it is an attempt to "limit our fun", is doing us a disservice.

The reason (IMO) for the rule makers to make these regulations, is so they have something easy to point to, for situations like Trappy.

Instead of scrambling to think of what exactly he did wrong, they make new rules so that later they can say, "this rule/law was broken". It's easier to make new laws, than to enforce the existing ones.
FlyingMonkey is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 04:38 PM
  #109  
Xptical
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Middle Georgia
Posts: 31
Default Re: AMA vs FAA...

This all started way before the NYC video. That video didn't help much, but the FAA was already looking to regulate us anyway.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk
Xptical is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 04:48 PM
  #110  
FlyingMonkey
Flite Test Fan
 
FlyingMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 32459
Posts: 8,930
Default

Just using it as an example.
FlyingMonkey is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 04:56 PM
  #111  
idealhobbies
Super Contributor
 
idealhobbies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Milford, Delaware
Posts: 1,564
Default

Originally Posted by FlyingMonkey View Post
Just using it as an example.
Unfortunately, so are a lot of other people.
idealhobbies is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 05:11 PM
  #112  
dbcisco
Like to build 'em
 
dbcisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,765
Default

I am more concerned about the AMA wanting to remove Section 3. Under section 3, I (and millions of park flyers) can fly all my planes unrestricted. With section 3 removed millions of park flyers will be forced to join the AMA or give up flying.
If anything, Section 2 should have been removed and Section 3 changed a little to something like the attached recommendation:
MyFAArecommendations.doc
dbcisco is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 05:14 PM
  #113  
FlyingMonkey
Flite Test Fan
 
FlyingMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 32459
Posts: 8,930
Default

It is certainly the most public one at the moment.

I remember one with an RC airplane being recorded flying close to a passenger jet.

There's countless videos of people flying thousands of feet high, miles away from where they're standing.

The self policing isn't working. They're looking for a solution. For rule makers, that's making rules. Unless we have something better to offer, that's what they will go with.
FlyingMonkey is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 05:18 PM
  #114  
rcers
Super Contributor
 
rcers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Trophy Club TX
Posts: 6,314
Default

My recommendation writeup for the FAA:

"Don't fix what is not broken."

I mean really, why go after something that is simply a non-issue. Model aviation is not causing any issues, period. This is just another example of trying to fix a problem that simply does not exist.



The self policing policy is working just great. We really don't need the FAA telling us how to fly safe. The few nuts we can all point out have not amounted to really anything. Again don't try to fix what is not broken.

If the FAA really needs something to do - why not work on the 1960's technology in use to guide passenger jets around the country and solve the issue of air traffic control for full scale passenger planes. Europe manage to upgrade their system, why not the US? That is a problem that needs solving.

Mike
rcers is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 06:04 PM
  #115  
Murocflyer
WAA-08 Pilot #1
 
Murocflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Edwards AFB, CA
Posts: 7,044
Default

Originally Posted by rcers View Post
My recommendation writeup for the FAA:

"Don't fix what is not broken."

I mean really, why go after something that is simply a non-issue. Model aviation is not causing any issues, period. This is just another example of trying to fix a problem that simply does not exist.


Mike

I agree with Mike's assessment totally. It's a shame that the FAA can't just leave us alone. Our safety record must be better than any other sport out there today. (with the exception of Curling. I hear those guys and gals are REALLY safe)

Frank
Murocflyer is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 07:07 PM
  #116  
dbcisco
Like to build 'em
 
dbcisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,765
Default

As for the AMA safety record, a $1.3M payment by the AMA in a lawsuit where the AMA "safety test" distressed a control line plane linkage so that it broke loose and crippled a by-stander at an AMA show.
If the AMA safety test wasn't done the accident would not have happened.
Not my words but the Court's.
This is what happens when amateurs make safety rules out of wholecloth. It would be a joke if people weren't getting hurt. Every year there are about 60 serious accidents handled by the AMA insurance costing hundreds of thousands (sometimes millions) of dollars. Quite a lot for 140K part-time fliers. No way of telling the number of accidents not reported to, or denied by, the AMA.
dbcisco is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 07:11 PM
  #117  
dbcisco
Like to build 'em
 
dbcisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,765
Default

Originally Posted by Murocflyer View Post
... Our safety record must be better than any other sport out there today. ...
Frank
Name another sport where the people not involved in the sport are in danger of getting maimed or killed.
Closest I can think of is getting beaned by a ball in the stands at a baseball game.
dbcisco is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 07:16 PM
  #118  
firemanbill
Community Moderator
 
firemanbill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sevierville, Tennessee
Posts: 20,652
Default

Originally Posted by dbcisco View Post
Name another sport where the people not involved in the sport are in danger of getting maimed or killed.
Closest I can think of is getting beaned by a ball in the stands at a baseball game.
Any Motorsport! for one. I distinctly recall a couple years ago a car going through the fence at Talladega and parts injuring several people.

Quite a few years ago a LOT of people were killed at an airshow at Ramstein AFB in Germany when the Italian air show team crashed into the crowd

We're not alone in the danger to spectator arena...
firemanbill is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 07:57 PM
  #119  
dbcisco
Like to build 'em
 
dbcisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,765
Default

Thanks Bill. I know the aircraft are regulated.
Nascar is constantly revising their safety regulations and the drivers often comlain about being over regulated by NASCAR. See this article.
I have yet to see any thorough research done by the AMA regarding any safety rules. All the AMA seems to do is come up with unsubstantiated rules. Take a look at the metal blades rule, dreamed up for a rich guy in Fla with nothing to back it up and is a totally worthless document, but the insurance company said it is OK so its allowed. A worse than amateur approach to creating safety rules.
dbcisco is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 08:02 PM
  #120  
NJSwede
3D wannabe
 
NJSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,893
Default

Originally Posted by dbcisco View Post
I am more concerned about the AMA wanting to remove Section 3. Under section 3, I (and millions of park flyers) can fly all my planes unrestricted. With section 3 removed millions of park flyers will be forced to join the AMA or give up flying.
Attachment 141024
(Mental note: Didn't I promise myself to stay out of this??? What's wrong with me?)

Huh? The whole purpose of Section 3 is to INTRODUCE restrictions on park fliers. Restrictions that, mind you, are not there today. With Section 3 in place you WILL be restricted, not the other way around.

According to their comment, AMA's biggest problem seems to be that it's not enforceable. Which obviously is true. There'll be nobody there to weight your model when you're getting it ready for takeoff at the local sports field at 7am on a Sunday morning.

I know absolutely nothing about AMA, but I *do* know how to read English and the interpretation of Section 2 and 3 are pretty clear cut.
NJSwede is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 08:26 PM
  #121  
kyleservicetech
Super Contributor
 
kyleservicetech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 8,952
Default

Originally Posted by dbcisco View Post
As for the AMA safety record, a $1.3M payment by the AMA in a lawsuit where the AMA "safety test" distressed a control line plane linkage so that it broke loose and crippled a by-stander at an AMA show.
Took awhile to find this issue, take a look, and scroll to the top of the thread. This happened in 2003.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10...tm.htm#1024389
kyleservicetech is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 08:35 PM
  #122  
dbcisco
Like to build 'em
 
dbcisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,765
Default

Section 3 is fine for park fliers and, if you read the additional recommendations in the document I posted, could cover 99% of model aircraft with minor alterations. What reason does the AMA have in wanting Section 2 removed? So they can force parkfliers to join the AMA? PPP didn't have much interest so force them to join?

If it becomes regulation then it will be enfoceable by local police. Just like the police enforce DOT rules on highways. Get caught and you will be penalized with a fine (at least).

This "unenforceable" nonsense would have us eliminate all laws because they are all "unenforceable". We have laws against murder but people still get murdered so lets just make it legal? People drink and drive so just let them?

Sorry, I would rather have the FAA in charge than forced to join the AMA and/or let the AMA make up the rules. I would rather have educated professionals than uneducated amateurs telling me what to do.

BTW, the original safety research that went into the ARC was done at MIT. I think they know more about scientific research than anyone in the the AMA.
dbcisco is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 08:41 PM
  #123  
Murocflyer
WAA-08 Pilot #1
 
Murocflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Edwards AFB, CA
Posts: 7,044
Default

Originally Posted by kyleservicetech View Post
Took awhile to find this issue, take a look, and scroll to the top of the thread. This happened in 2003.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10...tm.htm#1024389
It looks like it was brought up in '03, but it may have happend 10-20 years prior. See J_R's comment here: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=1024393 Either way, it has been quite a few years ago.

Frank
Murocflyer is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 08:42 PM
  #124  
dbcisco
Like to build 'em
 
dbcisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,765
Default

Originally Posted by NJSwede View Post
(Mental note: Didn't I promise myself to stay out of this??? What's wrong with me?)
Restrictions that, mind you, are not there today.
AC 91-57 is here today, and has been for 40 years.
The FAA said, "We are giving you guidelines, please follow them". The AMA said, "We are going to make up our own guidelines, we don't care what you think."

Now the FAA basically is saying, "Since you couldn't do this voluntarily we are going to force you to comply".

Makes sense to me. I always follow AC 91-57 and Section 2 is less resrictive which is fine with me. Get rid of it and I will have to join the AMA to fly a CX2 in my backyard.
dbcisco is offline  
Old 12-27-2010, 08:47 PM
  #125  
Murocflyer
WAA-08 Pilot #1
 
Murocflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Edwards AFB, CA
Posts: 7,044
Default

Originally Posted by NJSwede View Post
(Mental note: Didn't I promise myself to stay out of this??? What's wrong with me?)

Huh? The whole purpose of Section 3 is to INTRODUCE restrictions on park fliers. Restrictions that, mind you, are not there today. With Section 3 in place you WILL be restricted, not the other way around.

According to their comment, AMA's biggest problem seems to be that it's not enforceable. Which obviously is true. There'll be nobody there to weight your model when you're getting it ready for takeoff at the local sports field at 7am on a Sunday morning.

I know absolutely nothing about AMA, but I *do* know how to read English and the interpretation of Section 2 and 3 are pretty clear cut.
I'm glad I am not the only one who sees it this way.

I cannot see how this can be any clearer for any that wants to read it.

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)

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.


Thanks NJSwede,

Frank
Murocflyer 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 0.14848 seconds with 10 queries