(Head Slap) I figured out what is wrong with the AMA!

[TimmyG94]

This is where the AMA with their 170,000 members have clout. That's a lot of votes and Congresscritters don't ignore them. (For comparison, the AOPA has about 380,000 members, and the ALPA has 51,000 members).

Trust me, when this battle over airspace rights comes down to big business vs. the AMA (ie, hobbyists) ... politicians are going to side with corporations every single time. The little guy can't compete with those kinds of lobbying dollars.

I would guess within 15 years, there will be a good number of commercial drones operating at 200'-600' AGL where manned aircraft is not supposed to be flying (except at airports). However, us hobbyists will want to share that 200'-600' corridor as well but that will be exclusive domain of the big commercial drones doing "important" work. The rest of us will be stuck to below 200' AGL (maybe higher in certain recreation zones) for our "hobby".

 

[SteveMann]

For now, you have a Congress on your side. The FAA was specifically told not to touch or regulate hobby flying.

 

[SilentAV8R]

Despite some of their older members trying to "Poo Poo" our type flying,

To be clear, what many of my friends, young and old, dislike about multicopters is the profusion of idiots who fly with no regard for anyone but themselves. Responsible drone operators are not an issue. I fly my quad at both the clubs I belong to. No issues at all. It is the videos of people flying over unprotected people, buildings,densely populated residential areas, roads, vehicles, at high altitude, in clouds, above clouds, near airports, etc. that cause most AMA members I know to dislike multicopters. So if that is your type of flying, then yes, most AMA members are not going to like your type of flying, regardless of their age

 

[SilentAV8R]

For now, you have a Congress on your side. The FAA was specifically told not to touch or regulate hobby flying.

And sadly the FAA decided to see how far they could push those limits. The judge has put a hold on the AMA's petition against the FAA's overreach until the FAA publishes the NPRM for commercial use. Hopefully then the judge will see how FAA has violated the intent of Congress with respect to hobby flying.

 

[SteveMann]

For now, you have a Congress on your side. The FAA was specifically told not to touch or regulate hobby flying.

And sadly the FAA decided to see how far they could push those limits. The judge has put a hold on the AMA's petition against the FAA's overreach until the FAA publishes the NPRM for commercial use. Hopefully then the judge will see how FAA has violated the intent of Congress with respect to hobby flying.

What is your source on this? It isn't mentioned on any of the plaintiff's websites. (It was a lawsuit, not a petition, and the FAA cannot tell a judge what to do).

 

[SilentAV8R]

For now, you have a Congress on your side. The FAA was specifically told not to touch or regulate hobby flying.

And sadly the FAA decided to see how far they could push those limits. The judge has put a hold on the AMA's petition against the FAA's overreach until the FAA publishes the NPRM for commercial use. Hopefully then the judge will see how FAA has violated the intent of Congress with respect to hobby flying.

What is your source on this? It isn't mentioned on any of the plaintiff's websites. (It was a lawsuit, not a petition, and the FAA cannot tell a judge what to do).

I said the judge issued the order. The FAA filed a motion and the judge granted it.

This is my source:

Update on AMA’s petition for review of the Interpretive Rule

On Tuesday, November 18, 2014, the DC Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a motion to hold the petition for review in abeyance. This ruling puts on hold our request to review the FAA’s interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft established by Congress.

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov ... tive-rule/

See also: http://www.modelaircraft.org/gov/docs/AbeyanceOrder.pdf

 

[GoodnNuff]

Despite some of their older members trying to "Poo Poo" our type flying,

To be clear, what many of my friends, young and old, dislike about multicopters is the profusion of idiots who fly with no regard for anyone but themselves. Responsible drone operators are not an issue. I fly my quad at both the clubs I belong to. No issues at all. It is the videos of people flying over unprotected people, buildings,densely populated residential areas, roads, vehicles, at high altitude, in clouds, above clouds, near airports, etc. that cause most AMA members I know to dislike multicopters. So if that is your type of flying, then yes, most AMA members are not going to like your type of flying, regardless of their age

I've never encountered any hostility toward multirotor flyers at any of the 3 clubs I belong to, never even had a sideways glance from older members for flying my drones at the field. And I'm not alone, all the clubs I belong to have a fair number of members flying drones along with fixed wings at their fields.
Never heard of drones being banned from flying fields except on this list (and I wonder about the veracity of those reports).
I think what often happens are idiots who have no idea of how to share airspace join an AMA club and show up with their new toy and make a complete *** of themselves and are asked to leave.
If you don't even know what a flight line is, you aren't going to impress anyone with your lack of knowledge or skills and will be told not to fly at that field. I think this is interpreted as hostility from the AMA against drones and not for what it is, hostility against the individual who has no idea how to fly.

I'm still waiting for Timmy to show us where he has been belittled and insulted by old AMA members on this list...lol.
Accusations without backing just come off as paranoid whining IMHO.

 

[Khudson7]

Despite some of their older members trying to "Poo Poo" our type flying,

To be clear, what many of my friends, young and old, dislike about multicopters is the profusion of idiots who fly with no regard for anyone but themselves. Responsible drone operators are not an issue. I fly my quad at both the clubs I belong to. No issues at all. It is the videos of people flying over unprotected people, buildings,densely populated residential areas, roads, vehicles, at high altitude, in clouds, above clouds, near airports, etc. that cause most AMA members I know to dislike multicopters. So if that is your type of flying, then yes, most AMA members are not going to like your type of flying, regardless of their age

To this statement, I respectfully disagree...the type of flying you refer to, was not at all what I was trying to convey.
Just to be clear, in my assessment, the type of flying I refer to is what I believe is the biggest draw to multi rotors, that of using them for photo/videography(not for careless flying you suggest). I would guess the majority of multi rotor flyers are using it for that. This does not lend itself to being restricted to a dedicated field for flying only. I am not at all interested in seeing how far or fast or how many flips and turns I could do in some vacant field. Would get pretty boring very fast. Also these multi rotors offers such incredible use in photography/videography and in so many commercial ways that it can not be restricted to just a recreational hobby. It is so obvious to many, that these two points, can be done in a very safe manner, but seem way outside the scope of the AMA(or in Canada here, outside the scope of the MAAC, AMA's sister organization) AND present day law. So from that perspective alone, I think that some here are trying to say the AMA's agenda, does not work for us.

I am going with what the OP seems to have experienced from his characterization and apparent experience with some members of AMA. I am not agreeing with the OP at all, that all AMA members are old fuddy duddies, resistant to change, or totally against multi rotors as being part of the hobby they support. However I believe he is making a point that the present agenda of the AMA do not cover many of those aspects that are important to us, and I think the OP was just trying to point that out, should anyone here think the AMA is aligned with our needs. My take on this is that the AMA may be coming around, abbiet slowly, to supporting multi rotors the way we want, as their membership, as you have been saying are also branching out a bit. I do suspect the OP is absolutely correct in making his assessment that there are some members that fit his characterization and present agendas do not support some areas most important to us. Even in the video, the president of AMA states he has gotten push back from some of his members about the potential change in focus, this side of the hobby may be having on the AMA.

But as you have already mentioned, you and I suspect other members of AMA already are exploring this multi rotor experience and I am guessing, you might even attend some of the speakers at your convention regarding this area of flying. And as I tried to convey, I think the AMA can warm up to more of the needs we have. Heck it's own members(you) seem to be using multi rotors now as well. So they all can not be old fuddy duddies, RIGHT?

But I also believe that there are many of us outside of the AMA that ALSO "dislike... the profusion of idiots who fly with no regard for anyone but themselves". They also will only make it bad for all of us.

Because of their membership and clout, I was only suggesting a more positive approach to working within the AMA and with it's members like you, affecting change, might be a better approach than trying to write them off, as an organization, as it sounded to me, the OP was doing. They do have a big head start in a number of areas that do affect our side of the hobby(emphasis on safety for one, building of trust with FAA as another) even though their agenda does not always line up with what some would like.

 

[HailStorm]

I don't think the AMA's agenda is consistent with the commercial use of drones, they've never had a commercial interest in model flight, only a hobbyist's interest.
That said, the AMA's agenda is not against the commercial use of drones. I think they've remained neutral on that topic while fighting to protect the hobbyist's right to fly. And the AMA does not restrict flights only to AMA associated clubs or flying fields. You are free to fly anywhere as long as you follow some common sense safety rules.

I've not seen hostility towards multirotor pilots from the AMA either. I see an article each month on multirotors in the association's monthly magazine, and the AMA seems to embrace this new and evolving part of the hobby. I agree with the other poster who says it might be individuals who have experienced negative interactions that are not representative of the organization as a whole. And perhaps deserved. I've seen more than one quad flyer at local parks flying in a circle around themselves, spinning to keep their drone in sight while becoming noticeably dizzy and disoriented. Try that at a field and you might be asked to land and learn some rules of flight.

 

[SilentAV8R]

I'm still waiting for Timmy to show us where he has been belittled and insulted by old AMA members on this list...lol. Accusations without backing just come off as paranoid whining IMHO.

Get someone to help you out of your rocker so you can get closer to your screen and see what has been posted.



The fact that you and some other ancient AMA groupies seem to be missing is that a large number of multirotor folks have zero interest in going to an AMA field to fly, let alone join an organization that doesn't deliver any value for them.

Well, if the shoe fits....

Couple of points. First, that was not in response to that person, nor was it directed at him. Second, the assumption that anyone who defends the AMA or tries to explain the position of many of its members is both and old fart and a Life Member is wrong.

But I like how you took up the mantle of insulting people without knowing anything about them by automatically assuming that the detractors must be "ancient groupies." I can point you to numerous posts by guys I know are in their 30's who have a negative attitude towards much of what they see in the multirotor community. It is interesting that rather than look at the many examples of poor judgement and understand how people can feel negative about a group, you take the approach that they must be both ancient, and "groupies".

This reminds me of when 3D first got big in flying. lots of clubs got weary of 3D pilots hogging the runway by hovering over it, etc. Rather than those 3D pilots saying, "hey, maybe they have a point", the pushback was that the detractors were just jealous geezers who lacked the superior skill needed to hover in the middle of the runway in front of your face.

Some things never change.

 

[ianwood]

I don't think the AMA's agenda is consistent with the commercial use of drones.

I don't think the AMA's agenda is consistent with all non-commercial uses of drones either. AMA is great if you fly at their fields. If that's not your thing, the AMA is probably not for you.

 

[GoodnNuff]

I don't think the AMA's agenda is consistent with the commercial use of drones.

I don't think the AMA's agenda is consistent with all non-commercial uses of drones either. AMA is great if you fly at their fields. If that's not your thing, the AMA is probably not for you.

Please explain how the AMA's agenda is not consistent with non-commercial uses of drones, and be specific. Not some vague accusation without merit, please.

Also explain why the AMA would not be for someone who doesn't fly at their fields, and be specific.

Thanks,

 

[GoodnNuff]

I'm still waiting for Timmy to show us where he has been belittled and insulted by old AMA members on this list...lol. Accusations without backing just come off as paranoid whining IMHO.

Get someone to help you out of your rocker so you can get closer to your screen and see what has been posted.



The fact that you and some other ancient AMA groupies seem to be missing is that a large number of multirotor folks have zero interest in going to an AMA field to fly, let alone join an organization that doesn't deliver any value for them.

After reading your first sentence, the entire response can be dismissed.
And after reading your posting history, I can assume you arrived about an hour after "hemorrhagic flyer" was banned.
It is clear what your agenda is here.

 

[SilentAV8R]

I don't think the AMA's agenda is consistent with the commercial use of drones.

I don't think the AMA's agenda is consistent with all non-commercial uses of drones either. AMA is great if you fly at their fields. If that's not your thing, the AMA is probably not for you.

Again, it would be nice if criticism was based on fact rather than misinformed opinion.

There is not now, nor has there ever been, a requirement for AMA members to fly at a club chartered field. In fact, most AMA members do not belong to any particular club. Hence your entire statement is factually incorrect. In fact, just a few years ago AMA specifically developed a program to help make the point that members are not tied to a particular site, or type of site.

So which non-commercial uses, i.e. hobby, do you think AMA is not supporting??

 

[ianwood]

Correct me if I am wrong but AMA doesn't support flying in urban areas, does it? That'd be one.

 

[RJ Evans]

Lots of heat and opinions on both sides of this topic. I don't know enough about the AMA to comment either way. But, there's a single statement that continues to find it's way into almost every post on this board. And regardless of whether or not the topic is about hobby or commercial flying, the statement is a common ground. "Safe Manner" These two words link both sides of the issues at hand, and both sides seem to be blind to it. "Safe Manner" is a simple statement IMHO and reflects a common desire by both hobby and commercial entities to fly responsibly and safely. While there are some specifics that need to be addressed with regard to aircraft size, weight, speed, and use... It still comes down to "Safe Manner". For the most part, when it comes to multi-rotors, helicopters, or fixed wing, the rules are there. Most people involved with the AMA, and yes, even those like myself who are trying to start a commercial enterprise (in my case videography/photography) want to fly in a "Safe Manner". I think I can rightfully suggest that most AMA members or people trying to start a business are NOT going to engage in reckless or dangerous flying. It's just not in our DNA. Many of us have a lot of money tied up in equipment, not to mention our passion for flight! Would any of you truly risk it all, someone else' property, or health and well-being for a moment of intentional stupidity? I certainly wouldn't, and I don't think any of you would either. So... Assuming that most everyone involved with the AMA or with business ventures are operating in a "Safe Manner"...

It's useless to argue over who's doing what and who's not. In the end, the answer to the sUAV problem of regulation comes down to using "Safe Manner" as it currently applies to hobbyist R/C aircraft IMHO. In a nutshell, sUAV's (those like the Phantom, Inspire, Parrot, etc) used for commercial purposes should abide by the simple rules established for R/C model aircraft. Operated in a "Safe Manner", the only difference between hobbyist and commercial should be insurance liability. And that's not a stretch. Any business that isn't insured doesn't last long. If the only difference between a hobbyist and a commercial business is the *click* of a shutter, or video recording, for $$... This is really what it boils down to. Once again... ASSUMING most folks on both sides are interested in operating in a "SAFE MANNER"...

Yeah. There are always going to be idiots. Dangerous individuals who seek YouBoob fame and fortune. But, the rest of us have a responsibility to our passion, our love of flight, and to the opportunities this new technology presents us. If we can't find commonality in those two words, "Safe Manner"... What are we left with? A bunch of idiots, dangerous individuals seeking fame and fortune on YouBoob. Meanwhile, we continue to bicker about trivial things and lose precious time in contributing to finding reasonable, logical, constructive ways to further the technology and "Safe Manner" operations of these magnificent machines.

My .02 worth.

 

[GoodnNuff]

Correct me if I am wrong but AMA doesn't support flying in urban areas, does it? That'd be one.

They don't support flying in urban areas in an unsafe manner.

They do have a Park Flyer program, less insurance, limited membership and it's own publication geared for those who fly in urban and city parks.
But I suppose one could argue that the AMA doesn't support flying down crowded inner city streets or over stadiums filled with people.

Good post btw, RJ Evans.

 

[TimmyG94]

Very reasonable and well-intentioned post, although somewhat bloviated.

The bottom line is that drones at the consumer and commercial level will develop exactly as the automobile industry developed in the early 20th century. Cars were a game-changing paradigm shift in that time period and most people were confused about how exactly they were going to change our society. I'm sure there were a lot of people in 1910 saying things like "these new-fangled machines need to be operated in a safe manner" but what did that really mean? There could've been 1000 different interpretations of what that meant depending on who you talked to back then.

State and federal laws will dictate how we use drones, just like they dictated how automobiles are used. There will be many state regulations forthcoming that will detail exactly who can fly a drone, how high and far it can fly from a certain takeoff point, how big and powerful they can be, and what kind of licensing requirements you'll need to operate one. Everything the same as we treat cars today.

I say us hobbyists need to embrace this particular time period in our history because it's still sort of the "wild West" in terms of flying a drone. Right now you can just launch your bird and fly it anywhere without a license, as long as it isnt' near an airport or crowded stadium or nuclear power plant. 10 years from now, it will be much more regulated and therefore probably a lot less fun, although the drones themselves will be technological marvels.

Lots of heat and opinions on both sides of this topic. I don't know enough about the AMA to comment either way. But, there's a single statement that continues to find it's way into almost every post on this board. And regardless of whether or not the topic is about hobby or commercial flying, the statement is a common ground. "Safe Manner" These two words link both sides of the issues at hand, and both sides seem to be blind to it. "Safe Manner" is a simple statement IMHO and reflects a common desire by both hobby and commercial entities to fly responsibly and safely. While there are some specifics that need to be addressed with regard to aircraft size, weight, speed, and use... It still comes down to "Safe Manner". For the most part, when it comes to multi-rotors, helicopters, or fixed wing, the rules are there. Most people involved with the AMA, and yes, even those like myself who are trying to start a commercial enterprise (in my case videography/photography) want to fly in a "Safe Manner". I think I can rightfully suggest that most AMA members or people trying to start a business are NOT going to engage in reckless or dangerous flying. It's just not in our DNA. Many of us have a lot of money tied up in equipment, not to mention our passion for flight! Would any of you truly risk it all, someone else' property, or health and well-being for a moment of intentional stupidity? I certainly wouldn't, and I don't think any of you would either. So... Assuming that most everyone involved with the AMA or with business ventures are operating in a "Safe Manner"...

It's useless to argue over who's doing what and who's not. In the end, the answer to the sUAV problem of regulation comes down to using "Safe Manner" as it currently applies to hobbyist R/C aircraft IMHO. In a nutshell, sUAV's (those like the Phantom, Inspire, Parrot, etc) used for commercial purposes should abide by the simple rules established for R/C model aircraft. Operated in a "Safe Manner", the only difference between hobbyist and commercial should be insurance liability. And that's not a stretch. Any business that isn't insured doesn't last long. If the only difference between a hobbyist and a commercial business is the *click* of a shutter, or video recording, for $$... This is really what it boils down to. Once again... ASSUMING most folks on both sides are interested in operating in a "SAFE MANNER"...

Yeah. There are always going to be idiots. Dangerous individuals who seek YouBoob fame and fortune. But, the rest of us have a responsibility to our passion, our love of flight, and to the opportunities this new technology presents us. If we can't find commonality in those two words, "Safe Manner"... What are we left with? A bunch of idiots, dangerous individuals seeking fame and fortune on YouBoob. Meanwhile, we continue to bicker about trivial things and lose precious time in contributing to finding reasonable, logical, constructive ways to further the technology and "Safe Manner" operations of these magnificent machines.

My .02 worth.

 

[SilentAV8R]

Correct me if I am wrong but AMA doesn't support flying in urban areas, does it? That'd be one.

What do you mean by "urban areas"? If you mean flying over buildings and unprotected people, no, they do not support that. But they do support park flying, safely, in urban parks. Plus that are several established clubs in New York City, which is fairly urban. Plus they support pilots in places like NYC who can safely fly in various locations. They also just wrote a letter to two of the NYC council critters who want to ban all UAV/models in the City.

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov ... york-city/

So what more support of flying in urban areas would you like to see the AMA support??

 

[SilentAV8R]

The bottom line is that drones at the consumer and commercial level will develop exactly as the automobile industry developed in the early 20th century.

The difference being of course that there is already a long established example of how to safely operate radio control aircraft in the NAS. Cars were brand new. Multicopters while being a newish technology, are really only another step in the development of radio control models. So for new folks to think that they need to find their "own" definition of what is safe is problematic for a lots of people who have been a part of that longer history of knowing what is already safe to do.