astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Here's my $.02 of experience/reality. One of the fields I fly at is in what is called a, "practice area" for PP and student-pilots. When I was taking lessons toward my PP, my instructor would have me go near this field and practice approaches by lining up on the road that leads to/from that field. I have also witnessed student heli pilots practicing auto's lined up on the same road. There aren't very many man-made structures in this area and it is near the salt water, so it is more likely that GA aircraft will be flying low than in many other areas. At that field, the rule is to either land, or bring your plane down as low as is comfortable when any GA aircraft is flying low in the immediate airspace. It is very easy to do (see and avoid, basically), although I HAVE heard some of the older guys at the field complain about those "Low flying, hotshot, pilots that fly right through OUR airspace". This always pisses me off because, I mean, how hard is it to simply land or avoid when a large, lumbering full-scale Cub or C172 is withing 500' of us? ALL of the younger guys simply get out of the way or land, and think it is cool to be able to see FS planes flying up close. I don't get the old-guy attitude, it is like they OWN the airspace (technically, in that instance, they DO) but c'mon, how hard is it to circle around and let the FS pass?

I've said it for decades, that the track record of traditional RC aircraft in the NAS has been exemplary, and that has not changed. Too bad the AMA had to romance the drones and have us all lumped together under the same regulations, even though the capabilities and risk in the NAS are drastically different.

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Great post Astro. Once again we agree. I’m not sure though if it was the AMA that drove keeping all UAS under the same blanket or Congress. Either way it stinks. That said, everything that I have seen to date points to the FAA recognizes us traditional guys in a different category. Some comfort there even if it is not an official recognition.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

The AMA didn't, "Drive" the regulations, they simply didn't advocate to the FAA to distinguish the difference between the capabilities of traditional aircraft and drones, presumably because they saw an opportunity for a money/power grab. I believe it is reasonable to think that, if they had, the FAA may have provided for certain exemptions for traditional modelers.

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Very possible but I like to give benefit of the doubt until something concrete is provided. Seeing all the quadcopter and FPV content in MA does make me uncomfortable though.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I agree. The proof is in the pudding. As you know, I have been actively discussing this issue for years and have followed the proceedings as close as anyone. There is no evidence that I have seen that the AMA made ANY effort to distinguish between traditional aircraft and drones, despite their obvious differences and how they affect the NAS in vastly different ways, this is the basis for my opinion(s).

Do you have any evidence to offer that the AMA made any effort to distinguish the differences, or to suggest that traditional model aircraft and drones should be classified differently?

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

No, I have nothing that shows the AMA made any efforts to separate the two. I do somewhat feel that they saw this as an opportunity to increase membership but also believe that increasing membership would have benefited us all.

That said, I feel that the AMA is the body of the snake so to speak and the FAA is the head. So far there is a mountain of evidence pointing towards the FAA not wanting to interfere with traditional model airplane activities.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Except for the fact that the membership numbers have declined since then, so the AMA was wrong on that account as well. Proof is in the pudding.

Except for the actual written legislation that was passed. Proof is in the pudding.

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Here is where our perspectives differ. Yes membership has declined. No single reason for the decline but IMO the biggest slice of that pie are guys aging out and we aren’t getting the youth coming in. Unlike when we were kids, there are far more things for them to do that requires less effort and parental involvement.

Yes legislation was passed that we certainly did not want nor really need. FAA of course was pressured by Congress, DOD etc. The question here is would we have a different set of regulations had the AMA drawn a line in the sand and insisted that traditional modelers were the issue. Unfortunately we will never know the answer to that one.

Proof is in the pudding, we agree once again. The proof here is that the FAA continues to allow the AMA to sanction thousands of events each year knowing full well that the events require higher then 400’. I will use the same example of the upcoming AMA Nats, same $100. You game?

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

We weren't discussing the reason for the decline. The AMA's membership was declining BEFORE the FAA stepped in for all of the reasons you mentioned. They should have already been addressing THOSE issues, but instead chose to romance the drones as a quick fix (my opinion).

We can go back and forth on our speculations, and you are correct, we will never know for sure. I don't believe the AMA would have had to draw any hard lines in the sand, but simply would have had to ask the FAA be reasonable and accept the fact that over 80 years, there has been no real incidents that would mandate further restrictions. I, as you, believe the FAA doesn't necessarily see traditional modeling as a threat, but they were never asked to consider anything but lumping "us" in with the drones.

Flawed logic. The FAA has ZERO to do with AMA sanctioning events. They have NO authority to tell the AMA they can't sanction events, nor do I believe they care to. To say the FAA, "Knows full well that the events require higher than 400'" and use that as evidence the FAA is, and will continue to turn a blind eye is deceptive and misleading at best. This assumes that the FAA watches or monitors the AMA-sanctioning of events. There is zero evidence that they do, nor do I believe that you think they do (I certainly don't!). I don't doubt that the upcoming AMA Nats will proceed without interference from the FAA, but that doesn't change the rules, or the authority for the FAA to enforce them.

I am a law-abiding citizen and cannot condone any member of society that perceives they are "above the law" just because the law doesn't seem to be enforced, or because they don't think it is a good law, or for any reason for that matter.

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

In all honesty Astro, to believe that the FAA is not aware that the AMA is sanctioning events and that they are not aware that events are happening that exceeds 400’ is a bit naive. If the FAA had an issue with sanctioned events that flew over 400’ they certainly do have the authority to put an end to it. The 2019 soaring Nats in Muncie is a great example. A couple CD’s thought it would be prudent to submit for an exception to operate above 400’. The CD’s went directly to the FAA and were told that an exception to fly over 400’ was not required and to hold the event. That’s the thing about laws, they aren’t cast in stone like some want to believe. Take speeding for an example. Clearly doing 70 mph in a posted 60 mph zone is breaking the law. It’s quite possible that represents a greater risk to life then flying a model airplane at 800’. If your speeding is observed by a LEO he doesn’t have to pull you over and if he does, he doesn’t have to site you. They are empowered to use their discretion.

franklin_m

"Odds are that ..."

Your words remind me of others that spoke similarly ... that because there hadn't been an event to date meant there wouldn't be one in the future. The Deepwater Horizon folks were saying things strikingly similar right before their event. Hadn't been anything like that EVER happen. Come to think of it, NASA was saying that with the Columbia. In fact they'd been hit by foam multiple times and it was never a problem ... until it was .. and that one time was catastrophic. There's other examples too.

So just because a low probably event hasn't happened in the last 41 years doesn't mean that it won't happen ... And all it takes is one.

franklin_m

Or it's entirely plausible that FAA is giving the AMA plenty of rope to hang itself, and just waiting for that one event to drop the hammer. In fact, the stakeholders that are trying to severely restrict hobby flying are better off if something scary happens at an AMA sanctioned event - because it puts ALL the AMA events and processes in question. And once they start pulling those strings, they'll quickly find that AMA has looked the other way at pervasive ignorance of the law among it's clubs, sanctioned events, and members. Talk about handing the opposition a stick to beat you with!

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Really? Comparing these events and loss of life to maintain your “ the sky is falling “ agenda concerning toy airplanes?

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

More predictions? I doubt any different then your prior predictions that flopped.

init4fun

Having spent time interacting with the FAA it always appeared to me that they are reactionary in nature, they put out their rules and expect 100% compliance. When there is an incident causing a reaction (investigation) the first thing they obviously look for is which of their regulations were broken to precipitate the incident, and then the punishments are doled out accordingly reflecting the severity of the infraction(s) and damage those infractions caused. I do not believe the FAA, as an agency wide policy "lays traps" or anything similar of the such regarding UAS or any other flying device under their jurisdiction, they simply make their rules and punish those who don't follow when it is forced upon them to do so by having to investigate a reported incident.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Dammit, speed. Just when we seemed to be having a beneficial conversation, you start applying logical fallacies to my words. I never stated the FAA wasn't aware that the AMA is sanctioning events, I said that the FAA has, "ZERO to do with" and, "no authority over" the AMA's sanctioning of events. Not only did you move the goalposts, you then called my opinion, "naive", which is not only untrue, it doesn't align with your past narrative that we are all allowed to have our own opinions.

Again, out of context. They wouldn't put an end to the sanctioning of events, they would simply shut the event down. They do NOT have the authority to stop the AMA from sanctioning events, which is what I stated.

That is not really a great example in my opinion. Just because that FAA field office chose not to apply the law, doesn't mean the next one won't. Sherrif Buford T. Justice wouldn't overlook it and, the Sherriff in the next County over may give you a ticket. To imply that it is okay to break the law is no big deal because it is harmless, or because it hasn't been applied yet is just irresponsible, in my opinion.

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Astro, you need to keep in mind that in most cases I’m not just replying to you but to the topic as a whole. How many times do I reply to you, Hydro or Franklin just have one of you answer for whom I addressed my comment to? Since Franklin mentioned not having Muncie in his FOIA for having an altitude limit greater then 400’, I used Muncie as an example of when an FAA representative was well aware of and to an extent approved flying over 400’.

Secondly, do you have any evidence that the FAA couldn’t stop the AMA from sanctioning events? Wouldn’t refusal to do so if asked be counter productive to getting legitimate approvals for clubs?

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Except that wasn't the case here, as you addressed me specifically. LOL. It's really difficult to have a discussion with you.

Ummm.....because that is not how it works? It is a FACT that the FAA has no legal authority over which events AMA sanctions. Kinda hard to provide any evidence except for that. If you have something other than conjecture that conflicts with my statement, by all means, post it.

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I have no doubt that if you don’t keep the context of the entire thread in mind that it could be difficult to keep up. Funny how when you claim FACT we are just required to fall in line but others need to submit proof. Since we seem to be standing at the mouth of the same rabbit hole of futility we have been down many times already, I’ll simply wish you a pleasant Easter and bail out.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

LOL. I don't make the rules, that is how cordial discourse works. One makes a claim to support their stance, it is the others' responsibility to provide evidence to the contrary if they refute the claim. One cannot refute a claim with supposition , or just a differing opinion. In other words, my statements stand as fact, regardless of your feelings or opinions, or until you can provide evidence to the contrary, which, in this case simply doesn't exist. I don't expect you to, "Fall in line", I simply expect you to provide the impetus for your challenge. This is precisely why most of our dialogue ends up in the gutter. I provide evidence, you retort with feelings and suppositions, with no factual basis.

Have a nice Easter.

Astro

init4fun

Yep, I hope you all have a nice Easter, , , however you celebrate it

franklin_m

IRT a couple of the post above, I don' see the FAA as laying traps in a strict sense. What I do see is that the FAA is clearly playing the long game, perhaps under influence of other stakeholders (via Congress), willing to be patient and let the hobby plant the seeds of its own demise. FAA and other stakeholders aren't stupid. They know or have a pretty good sense that AMA is aging out. And it's principally AMA members that have a "need" for flight over 400. Contrast that with the FT folks. They're perfectly happy below 400, and they're growing. So the forces that want more airspace just sit back and let AMA age out, and then If something does happen that puts effectiveness AMA's safety oversight in question, that presents an opportunity to accelerate their demise with calls for more regulation and/or law. It'll be a death of a 1000 cuts.

Imagine a turbine loses signal and lands a mile or so outside the FRIA in a housing area? FAA / NTSB does some investigation and find out that it came from an event nearby that was operating outside the rules. And say they dig just a little and find out that this behavior is commonplace. You could easily see much more attention on compliance with altitude limits. How many AMA members will that push away? Or perhaps for turbine powered sUAS each needs to have its own registration number and airworthiness certificate (in some abbreviated form). How many AMA members will that drive away? Or perhaps the operator of the turbine that crashed in the housing area holds other FAA certification (ones used to make a living), and the FAA pulls those. How many AMA members will that drive away? Oh, and say someone gets hurt and the plaintiffs take the FAA/NTSB investigations an show a pattern of behavior of AMA. Keep in mind that AMA has to cover out of cash any claims above a specific amount. Remember, their pockets aren't that deep. They don't have a lot of liquid assets left since they sold most of them to cover costs rather than cut spending more aggressively these past few years.

So despite the lessons of other industries and activities that have learned the painful lesson that low probability / high consequence events do indeed happen, the AMA continues to look the other way at the one thing that provides some level of protection - simply demanding its members follow their own rules and the FAA rules.

Hydro Junkie

I'd give it up, Franklin, you're beating on a dead horse. I tried to talk logic and sense to him and got told I was wrong. Until the FAA actually shows up, with LEOs in tow at some event site, he's not going to listen to anyone since we're wrong and nothing bad is going to happen

franklin_m

Unfortunately, his thinking reflects the EC's thinking. They're literally one low probability / high-consequence event from financial ruin and regulation the likes of which they've yet to see. And every single weekend, AMA members are out there imposing risk on the future of the hobby - all because the EC won't hold them accountable.

mach5nchimchim

Yes, FPV drones usage outside give plank fliers a bad rap, since they lugged us all under the same umbrella.