FAA ARC Group stuff for Models! - Page 3

bwalt822 · May 14, 2009, 01:14 PM

No im saying, that people who dont pay the $58 shouldnt get upset when they find regulations placed on them that they dont want.

Well they can get upset at the FAA but that will do them no good since a few single voices arent very loud.

Past actions are the best indicator of future actions and the AMA can show that its members are safe and can be trusted to fly within the rules that the AMA currently has. People who are not part of the AMA cannot or more importantly they have not collectively done this so of course the FAA will not listen to them.

This is what makes the AMA valuable, they have status and can PROACTIVELY speak for the entire membership while people that fly independently can only speak for themselves. Even then, those people that do speak for themselves usually only do so after the fact which doesnt help their cause.

Dad_Roman · May 14, 2009, 01:23 PM

....or when the new Homeland Defense Force shows up and slaps a "terrorist" label on ya

littlecrankshaft · May 14, 2009, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwalt822

No im saying, that people who dont pay the $58 shouldnt get upset when they find regulations placed on them that they dont want.

Well they can get upset at the FAA but that will do them no good since a few single voices arent very loud.

Past actions are the best indicator of future actions and the AMA can show that its members are safe and can be trusted to fly within the rules that the AMA currently has. People who are not part of the AMA cannot or more importantly the have not collectively done this so of course the FAA will not listen to them.

This is what makes the AMA valuable, they can speak for the entire membership while people that fly independently can only speak for themselves.

Based on the concept of you being right we are in very deep trouble

bwalt822 · May 14, 2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaft

Based on the concept of you being right we are in very deep trouble

We are in trouble because some modelers prefer having a central organization that can represent them to the FAA so that we dont have needless regulations placed on us which would hurt or modeling activities? It seems to be working so dont get it.

What would you have the AMA do in this circumstance?

If you don't like the AMA, then dont join it and live with the fact that you basically have no say in whatever happens to flying regulations.

bwalt822 · May 14, 2009, 01:43 PM

My guess is that there would be a list of organizations with "accepted standards". This would prevent Joe Parkflyer from typing up "i can fly my plane however I want" on his computer and then trying to use that as a defense.

Quote:

Reflects FAA’s concept of regulating model aviation by
exempting Model Aircraft from regulation. Under this approach, modelers
participating within an aeromodeling structure/organization such as the
Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) may operate their Model Aircraft
in accordance with an accepted set of standards and operating
procedures. Based on a more rigorous attention to safety, risk assessment,
and risk mitigation, the accepted standards may provide greater latitude
in the Model Aircraft operations. Modelers not participating in the
additional safety programming established in an accepted set of standards

NorfolkSouthern · May 14, 2009, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaft

"ALTERNATIVE VIEW: Eliminate Section 3.0 in its entirety."
I agree with that view

I read section 3 on the ARC report, and it doesn't appear like I see any changes in the operation of models outside of the AMA fields. What impact to the hobby would it have if they left it on?

NorfolkSouthern

littlecrankshaft · May 14, 2009, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern

I read section 3 on the ARC report, and it doesn't appear like I see any changes in the operation of models outside of the AMA fields. What impact to the hobby would it have if they left it on?

NorfolkSouthern

Come on now...you can't be serious...essentially section 3 is a safety code arbitrarily developed for everyone else...evidently it was initially promulgated by the AMA for the AMA's ultimate control plan.

Fortunately, there seems to be some sense that that section should be thrown out.

bwalt822 · May 14, 2009, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaft

Come on now...you can't be serious...essentially section 3 is a safety code arbitrarily developed for everyone else...evidently it was initially promulgated by the AMA for the AMA's ultimate control plan.

Fortunately, there seems to be some sense that that section should be thrown out.

So who should talk to the FAA to get section 3 thrown out?

littlecrankshaft · May 14, 2009, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwalt822

So who should talk to the FAA to get section 3 thrown out?

how 'bout never putting it in...in the first place?

bwalt822 · May 14, 2009, 03:59 PM

well then who should tell them not to put it in? Who can show the FAA that model airplanes including those over 55 pounds and turbines are safe?

RC planes do need to have rules against them at least so when someone does something stupid there is something to prosecute them for. The AMA has shown that their organization is safe and can therefore get an exemption from these proposed rules.

NorfolkSouthern · May 14, 2009, 04:04 PM

A safety code for everybody else, yes. The standard 55 pound limit and 400 foot altitude still applies, with the turbine ban added. It seems to me that model planes, either nitro or electric, can still be operated in places where they are not prohibited. Which means that I can still fly my .40 sized Citabria without having to go to the flying field, as long as it's over an open area, and I stay within the guidelines while using common sense. What's wrong with that?

NorfolkSouthern

littlecrankshaft · May 14, 2009, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwalt822

The AMA has shown that their organization is safe and can therefore get an exemption from these proposed rules.

The very rules they proposed…??Come on….the only difference between being AMA goody-goody and the typical unclean modeler is only $58…a double standard to take such a position IMO

This hobby has proven to be equally safe outside of AMA’s control as well…any other contrary position is bull.

bjpaul · May 14, 2009, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaft

The very rules they proposed…??Come on….the only difference between being AMA goody-goody and the typical unclean modeler is only $58…a double standard to take such a position IMO

This hobby has proven to be equally safe outside of AMA’s control as well…any other contrary position is bull.

Got statistics to support that, or is just your opinion without facts ?

Been seeing a lot of those AMA "Black Helicopters" lately?

bwalt822 · May 14, 2009, 05:19 PM

The only difference between the "AMA goody goody" and the "typical unclean modeler" may very well be $58. But I ask again who is the voice of the "unclean modeler" to keep these rules away...crickets...thats right nobody is. So when you dont want to pay your dues to have someone represent you, live with the consequences and dont complain about the AMA. They are there to represent their membership.

If the AMA leaders think that its dangerous to let anyone not in the AMA or any other national body fly a plane over 55 pounds or a turbine then that is their right. Nothing is stopping anyone from forming a free organization that fights for the rights of modelers. You will quicky find that this probably not possible because money equates to status and a means to get things done.

fhhuber506771 · May 14, 2009, 10:01 PM

I seem to remember a certain person who by flying in an un safe manner on or near a college campus managed to crash an overpowered "PARK FLYER" (Twinjet with appx 1300 watts at appx 3 lbs... 4:1 + Power:weight.) who crashed into the college's gym and resulted in the BOMB SQUAD being called.

Non-AMA flyer not paying any attention to safety, flying a model in an inappropriate area and in an inapproriate manner.

There's my example of a true "renegade Flyer" of the type who WILL cause EVERY modeler to deal with tighter restrictions from the FAA.

All it takes is one idiot doing something stupid and we could easilly have the FAA require pilot certification for ALL RC flying.

May 14, 2009, 01:14 PM	#31
bwalt822 Registered User Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: The Puget Sound Area Posts: 1,617	No im saying, that people who dont pay the $58 shouldnt get upset when they find regulations placed on them that they dont want. Well they can get upset at the FAA but that will do them no good since a few single voices arent very loud. Past actions are the best indicator of future actions and the AMA can show that its members are safe and can be trusted to fly within the rules that the AMA currently has. People who are not part of the AMA cannot or more importantly they have not collectively done this so of course the FAA will not listen to them. This is what makes the AMA valuable, they have status and can PROACTIVELY speak for the entire membership while people that fly independently can only speak for themselves. Even then, those people that do speak for themselves usually only do so after the fact which doesnt help their cause. Last edited by bwalt822; May 14, 2009 at 01:22 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale Stuff for sale (Models and equipment) ALL SOLD	whisper	Aircraft - Sailplanes (FS/W)	11	Jan 21, 2007 01:49 PM
Stuff for sale	ScotY	Aircraft - Electric - Airplanes (FS/W)	6	Feb 16, 2003 11:50 PM
Crazy Sparrow gone, have it's stuff for sale	cruzomatic	Aircraft - Electric - Airplanes (FS/W)	0	Oct 18, 2001 08:32 PM
Lots of stuff FOR SALE. Great Prices.	quintav02	Aircraft - Electric - Airplanes (FS/W)	4	Aug 06, 2001 07:40 PM
Stuff for FAQ	dave_lilley	Foamies (Kits)	7	Jun 28, 2001 09:17 AM

May 14, 2009, 01:23 PM	#32
Dad_Roman Twistaholic AMA 134406 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Central Texas Posts: 2,297	....or when the new Homeland Defense Force shows up and slaps a "terrorist" label on ya

May 14, 2009, 03:59 PM	#40
bwalt822 Registered User Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: The Puget Sound Area Posts: 1,617	well then who should tell them not to put it in? Who can show the FAA that model airplanes including those over 55 pounds and turbines are safe? RC planes do need to have rules against them at least so when someone does something stupid there is something to prosecute them for. The AMA has shown that their organization is safe and can therefore get an exemption from these proposed rules.

May 14, 2009, 04:04 PM	#41
NorfolkSouthern Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 248	A safety code for everybody else, yes. The standard 55 pound limit and 400 foot altitude still applies, with the turbine ban added. It seems to me that model planes, either nitro or electric, can still be operated in places where they are not prohibited. Which means that I can still fly my .40 sized Citabria without having to go to the flying field, as long as it's over an open area, and I stay within the guidelines while using common sense. What's wrong with that? NorfolkSouthern

May 14, 2009, 05:19 PM	#44
bwalt822 Registered User Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: The Puget Sound Area Posts: 1,617	The only difference between the "AMA goody goody" and the "typical unclean modeler" may very well be $58. But I ask again who is the voice of the "unclean modeler" to keep these rules away...crickets...thats right nobody is. So when you dont want to pay your dues to have someone represent you, live with the consequences and dont complain about the AMA. They are there to represent their membership. If the AMA leaders think that its dangerous to let anyone not in the AMA or any other national body fly a plane over 55 pounds or a turbine then that is their right. Nothing is stopping anyone from forming a free organization that fights for the rights of modelers. You will quicky find that this probably not possible because money equates to status and a means to get things done.

May 14, 2009, 10:01 PM	#45
fhhuber506771 Deletedfor proving Nauga wrong Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Posts: 15,865	I seem to remember a certain person who by flying in an un safe manner on or near a college campus managed to crash an overpowered "PARK FLYER" (Twinjet with appx 1300 watts at appx 3 lbs... 4:1 + Power:weight.) who crashed into the college's gym and resulted in the BOMB SQUAD being called. Non-AMA flyer not paying any attention to safety, flying a model in an inappropriate area and in an inapproriate manner. There's my example of a true "renegade Flyer" of the type who WILL cause EVERY modeler to deal with tighter restrictions from the FAA. All it takes is one idiot doing something stupid and we could easilly have the FAA require pilot certification for ALL RC flying.