So, is anyone else following what may be coming down the pike from the FAA as far as our hobby is concerned? (for those of us in the USA) I'm kind of surprised to not see any discussion of it in this group.
I may be a bit behind as apparently this has been in the works for quite a while, and I just happened to find on the AMA website the document with the recommendations from the aviation rulemaking committee. It gives some hints as to what may be coming.
I have to say that it looks like my future plans for this hobby are going to range from becoming anywhere from inconvenient to actually illegal.
This even affects my plans for the radio system I started developing, which went from being merely something for personal accomplishment (back when I was discussing it in this group a while back) to something that I thought I might turn into a salable product.
I definately need to write a letter to my congresscritters, as soon as I can figure out how to concisely and nicely get my points across.
rcdude07 wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@no-mx.rcspeak.com:
Thank you for that link. It's interesting that the AMA rep is hopeful that we can continue the hobby as is, perhaps with just a few additional safety checks, *including those activities considered on the fringe*.
I wonder if that is referring to FPV.
FPV is something I've been wanting to do and I firmly believe it can be done safely and responsibly. I even believe that under the right circumstances it can be done out of line-of-sight, safely and responsibly.
I wonder if anyone in the AMA has given this activity any real attention, perhaps drawing up guidelines to make it doable safely. It may even involve something like the existing turbine waivers, although admittedly I know nothing of what's involved in that. Certainly it would require a minimum of equipment specifications.
But my point is, there are already people doing it, people who want to do it, and people who will do it no matter what. There should be a way to incorporate it 'properly' into the hobby. I believe there is room for this activity.
There was a piece on NPR All Things Considered on Mar 14 about autonomous RPVs and the FAA. Interviews with Aerovironment and DIYDrones website person.
formatting link
Go to the March 14th show.
As far a Congress, right now contact your House Representative to support the recreational model aircraft exemption.
From AMA "Both the Senate and the House have prepared Bills that address the FAA=92s Re-Authorization. S.223 has already passed the Senate and it contains an amendment to exempt model aviation. .... H.R. 658 is on the House floor awaiting passage and does NOT yet have a similar amendment. We are actively meeting with Representatives on the Hill and working to build support for such an amendment. While we have had many promising meetings, we still need your help."
I just revisited this site after a long absence and thought this place would be burning up with this issue. I am surprised -- but not in the AMA's response.
I have read the reports and I can understand the problem and though I have contributed to the AMA more years than I would want to admit (AMA
69222), I have no hope for the AMA based on the last reports.
Lets face it...these are indeed difficult times and the AMA continues to go their way thinking that if they tout model aviation for the young people (as their charter requires) all will be well in the end. (Head in sand principle.)
The government does have a point with their concerns. The AMA could show some consideration for those concerns -- but they do the opposite! Instead, they take the old (unsupported) positions that they always do.
What is the problem?
The government is concerned with what it is that we are flying and how it might be used. Fair enough concern.
The AMA will not address WHAT we are flying but the WAY we are flying.
The government knows that those wanting to use these models against the people, will not pay a lot of attention to what the local insurance rules are at the chartered nearby flying field.
See the problem there?
So the AMA shows their respect of the government's position by discussing increasing (not decreasing) the weights of our toy model airplanes. Folks...125 pounds is a deadly weight even without a warhead.
The problem is not a concerned government (and heaven knows it is easy to blame the government for most [if not all] problems), but in this case, they have a point -- and the AMA is not addressing it.
What will happen?
I haven't the foggiest idea! As long as the AMA demonstrates that they can ignore the greatest source of new modelers and wants to increase the weights of models, they, the AMA, are not the solution.
Sure it does. The AMA stands for Academy of Model Aeronautics. We are flying models, not drones. FPV takes it into a gray area where it could be considered a drone as in the plane can now be controlled out of the pilots unassisted line of sight.
Criminals are also not going to be paying any attention to the governments laws regardless of what they are. So why punish an honest law abiding citizen for what a criminal might do?
Anything flying that weighs over 4 pounds can be deadly.
The problem is that the government want to lump the recreational model flyers in with the commercial flyers. As the FAA rules stand now, the companies that want to use a model helicopter or slow flying model airplane as a camera platform or a sensors platform has no legal way to do it. They don't fall into the recreational category. And they do not fall into any category that will allow them to us our national airspace. The FAA started this rule making to address that problem. Recreational flyers got lumped in there. Some of those restrictions should not apply to recreational flyers that conform to AMA rules, one of which says we are not supposed to fly out of line of sight.
We need these new rules, but we don't need the same rules for recreational models.
It is flawed logic to try to make laws to try to control terrorists and/ or criminals. They are not going to abide by those laws, otherwise they would not be called criminals.
Yes, they are models but some are 1:2 models. And at 125 pounds, there will be 1:1 models. "It isn't a real Predator...it just looks and flies like one. GPS, heads-up video displays, etc." (That will be OK because the flier will have a spotter on the field relying on his eyes to keep it AMA official.) Designing such a thing from scratch for deadly applications might be a little much but certainly possible by a good modeler, but what about a RTF Predator model? If there was a "toy" market for them, they would be provided. It couldn't possibily be classified a weapon because "it is a model and sold in model airplane magazines for recreational use only." The AMA should show some concern for the government's worries and not continue to fall back on the "toy airplane idea for dad and son" nonsense...dad and son do not need 125 pound models. I think the issue is not people-to-people attacks -- but air-to-ground targeting is more concerning.
Very true. The question becomes, "How easy do we want to make it for them?" The honest citizen is ALWAYS punished for what the criminal does! Look at all the laws and inconveniences. Those were not put in place because of the actions of the law-abbing but the law-abidding must abide by them by definition. The criminal doesn't. The law is to discourage and then permit apprehension and punishment.
That is not the point actually, the physical size and payload carrying capability is the issue. And the specifications of the payload and airframe performance.
We can see why they would want to do that and if it were our responsibility, that might be what we would suggest to affect the solution we are seeking. I agree that this is very ungood for modelers, but the AMA should be working from a proactive stance. Heavier models and old litany is not a smart thing to do today. Is the sponsored flier of a very large, heavy 3D model a commercial flier? Does he include this financial assistance on his income tax disclosure? This is not a simple problem...few problems are in a complex, highly-technical world. My concern is with the attitude of the AMA.
Are you saying that the FAA says that if we are flying an RPV and are not members of the AMA that we are doing so illegally? I didn't know that. I have flown models with remote sensors on them while an engineer with NASA and it was a federally funded project...I didn't consider it illegal. I am sure the government didn't either.
I thought it was fun -- but you are correct. I couldn't have afforded to do that otherwise.
There is also the altitude concerns for me. I am a soaring pilot, and there are free-flighters that have thermal flying as a part of the competition and sport. By the way, I speed. Like many people, I make the distinction in risk and apprehension and the penalty for being caught. The same will apply to model flying if the AMA is not careful.
I agree but I think the desire for model airplane type will dictate the market. I am serious...a RTF 125 pound Predator would be purchased by many legit modelers. That is hard to imagine but it will be done. I know too many guys who would want to be the first on the field to fly one. Everyone could watch the ground track on their laptops. Bombing contests via video would be a great AMA event. We need to think ahead and that contest would become very popular...TV would love it as a reality show. TOP GUN competition...brought up to date.
So you would suggest dropping all laws to try to control terrorists? I don't think that is what you meant. We can encourage them by letting them learn how to take-off and land commercial jets (no landing practise necessary) or we can make it difficult for them to do that now. There are things we can do to discourage; we are trying to that with these modeling rules. And yes, the law-abidding modelers will pay the price -- just like we are doing with our insurance now. It shows that we are responsible modelers.
Thanks for the discussion...good points. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
I don't think that could have been done intentionally and that is the point -- but you are correct. It doesn't take much sometimes. We are pretty vulnerable creatures on occasion.
That is correct. I think the first model death was at Shea stadium. This was a tragedy that could have been avoided, and many, (I was one) that was lobbying the AMA to do away with show-teams until we got better control of our radio links. This was back in the days of limited number of 72 mhz and flying with people surrounding the football field. The metal structure of the stadium was like a bowl and any wayward signals would eventually be found. A show-team was flying strange models and one was the flying lawn mower. It got out of control (I think a bad security handheld transceiver was the culprit) and struck the shoulder of one football fan and went into the side of the head of his friend sitting beside him. They had gone to a football game and then one was dead from a model airplane. Wow! The family was shocked in more ways than one.
It doesn't take much -- but the faster, heavier, and bigger -- the more serious the injury can be. This is true with models and most weapons.
| I think the first model death was at Shea stadium. This was a tragedy | that could have been avoided, and many, (I was one) that was lobbying | the AMA to do away with show-teams until we got better control of our | radio links.
There's more on that here --
formatting link
Being that it was 1979, I seriously doubt it was the first model death
-- it's just the most famous.
| This was back in the days of limited number of 72 mhz
Yup -- there were 6 72 MHz frequencies and 6 27 MHz frequencies and that was it.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.