View Poll Results: Did the AMA blow it?
Yes. The AMA is to blame for our current legal mess. 32 50.00%
Nope. We would be here, or on our way here, regardless of any legal distinction AMA could have tried to make. 32 50.00%
Voters: 64. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Aug 08, 2019, 01:49 AM
We are not men, we are DEVO 7e
xanuser's Avatar
Thread OP
Poll

Did the AMA blow it or not?


OK RCGers, lets set the record straight once and for all, so it doesn't need to be brought up in each and every, sigh, "advocacy" forum.

Did the AMA fail/blow it/STB when they did not make a distinction between the amount of rotors and the thrust direction an RC has, or not?


If in 2 weeks this poll is 70% one way or the other, can we just drop it from "discussion", as it shall be declared proven fact, and finally move on to advocating for what we can do now?

Thanks for your participation.

MAKE R/C GREAT AGAIN - 2020!

(usernames will not displayed in poll)
Last edited by xanuser; Aug 08, 2019 at 01:58 AM.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Aug 08, 2019, 08:53 AM
Registered User
aeronaut999's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by xanuser
If in 2 weeks this poll is 70% one way or the other, can we just drop it from "discussion", as it shall be declared proven fact
What are you smoking?
Aug 08, 2019, 09:13 AM
We are not men, we are DEVO 7e
xanuser's Avatar
Thread OP
Would be65% better? Or 75%?
Aug 08, 2019, 09:47 AM
Drone Pilot (Trainee)
I find it rather amusing that the AMA gets panned by people who think if the organization had simply excluded quad-rotors/drones/.sUAS/whatever you call them, the gubmint would not have paid any attention to the rest of the RC world.

THAT is being out of touch with reality.

Anyone with even the first of many clues in the area of security can tell you that drones aren't much of an issue in the spectrum of things that could happen. The reason? Very limited payload and range.

Now take your average 2- or 4-motor winged RC plane. It's payload might be small compared to what's possible, but typically far exceed a quad-rotors, as does its range. One need only scale up a bit from there and you have the poor-man's equivalent of a cruise missile. Mostly, that was the threat that ISIS posed in Syria, with quad rotors significantly trailing behind in actual use by real terrorists intent on attacking something kinetically.

The facts, like that, simply don't support the idea that embracing drones poisoned the AMA or undermined the freedoms more traditional airframe formats enjoyed. The government mostly doesn't care about that distinction and, if anything, sees multi-engined standard winged RC aircraft to be a larger danger.
Aug 08, 2019, 10:17 AM
Registered User
smithdoor's Avatar
I would hard to stop any of new laws .
The only way the AMA to stop the laws is take payment from other countries and use for bribes and pay off.

We in the RC world get the short stick for a very safe hobby since 1898.

Dave
Aug 08, 2019, 12:12 PM
Registered User
I'm betting on a 52%/48% result
Aug 08, 2019, 12:30 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlehman56
I find it rather amusing that the AMA gets panned by people who think if the organization had simply excluded quad-rotors/drones/.sUAS/whatever you call them, the gubmint would not have paid any attention to the rest of the RC world.

THAT is being out of touch with reality.

Anyone with even the first of many clues in the area of security can tell you that drones aren't much of an issue in the spectrum of things that could happen. The reason? Very limited payload and range.

Now take your average 2- or 4-motor winged RC plane. It's payload might be small compared to what's possible, but typically far exceed a quad-rotors, as does its range. One need only scale up a bit from there and you have the poor-man's equivalent of a cruise missile. Mostly, that was the threat that ISIS posed in Syria, with quad rotors significantly trailing behind in actual use by real terrorists intent on attacking something kinetically.

The facts, like that, simply don't support the idea that embracing drones poisoned the AMA or undermined the freedoms more traditional airframe formats enjoyed. The government mostly doesn't care about that distinction and, if anything, sees multi-engined standard winged RC aircraft to be a larger danger.
If that were the case, the FAA would have become involved a long time ago.
The entire upshot of all this is the FAA gets more funding as they become more involved(read tyrannical) in the R/C hobby much the same way the rest of the government has. It's the only way for bureaucrats to justify their existence along with becoming more dictatorial.
The end result is, of course, total control over everybody.
None of this came about until 9/11: the Patriot Act, DHS, TSA, NDAA and the expansion of spying on all Americans.
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/0...amed-and-more/
Aug 08, 2019, 02:40 PM
Registered User
kingwoodbarney's Avatar
If I recall correctly, and I'm certain someone will tell me if I'm wrong, but the AMA and model airplanes were not considered for regulation back when the original sUAS symposium was being gathered together for discussions. We were free and clear and off their radar, so to speak. But the AMA insisted it be included, that it represented drone pilots, that there was no difference, and the all time topper, that the voluntary 400 foot rule we had lived with since 1981, ( with a wink and a nod), was completely unacceptable. Either intentionally or by complete stupidity the AMA had declared to authorities that manned aircraft and model airplanes were not separated from each other by established rules as the FAA thought. This info made it up the channels and back down again with our current situation being the result.
Aug 08, 2019, 05:06 PM
Registered User
Indeed. The AMA thought that including the droners/quads would enhance revenue for the coming year.

Didn't exactly turn out that way.
The leadership at AMA headquarters needs to be replaced entirely.
Aug 08, 2019, 11:20 PM
Drone Pilot (Trainee)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyroger
If that were the case, the FAA would have become involved a long time ago.
The entire upshot of all this is the FAA gets more funding as they become more involved(read tyrannical) in the R/C hobby much the same way the rest of the government has. It's the only way for bureaucrats to justify their existence along with becoming more dictatorial.
The end result is, of course, total control over everybody.
None of this came about until 9/11: the Patriot Act, DHS, TSA, NDAA and the expansion of spying on all Americans.
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/0...amed-and-more/
You obviously weren't paying attention BEFORE 9/11 if you think no one was spying on Americans before then.

It starts with this book on goings on in the 1920s and, well, your government has never really stopped spying on its citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Am..._Black_Chamber

I suspect your argument this has much to do with drones is kind of weak, Not that your take on general trends in government overreach isn't accurate, it is, but it's also just scratching the surface.
Aug 10, 2019, 09:01 AM
Registered User
Personally I believe that RC model flight is RC model flight and that the number of rotors, having or not having wings, and the direction those rotors are pointing is not a factor. Now, there is a difference I see between an RC hobbyist and a Photography Buff flying a quad copter. Not all who fly RC are hobbyists and it is easier to do stupid things and get in trouble with a multirotor due to their inherent stabilty (the ones Photography Buffs buy not the one a hobbyist might build or fly without the computerized stability). It is the way the RC model is used and the respect the pilot has for others that makes the difference.

That being said, I'm not so sure the AMA didn't mess things up a bit by attempting to embrace legislation with the concept that they could somehow mandate membership in the organization by law. If anything I think that was the biggest mistake they (we since I am still a member) made.
Aug 10, 2019, 04:23 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcmors
Personally I believe that RC model flight is RC model flight and that the number of rotors, having or not having wings, and the direction those rotors are pointing is not a factor. Now, there is a difference I see between an RC hobbyist and a Photography Buff flying a quad copter. Not all who fly RC are hobbyists and it is easier to do stupid things and get in trouble with a multirotor due to their inherent stabilty (the ones Photography Buffs buy not the one a hobbyist might build or fly without the computerized stability). It is the way the RC model is used and the respect the pilot has for others that makes the difference.

That being said, I'm not so sure the AMA didn't mess things up a bit by attempting to embrace legislation with the concept that they could somehow mandate membership in the organization by law. If anything I think that was the biggest mistake they (we since I am still a member) made.



I agree and also the AMA needs to advocate for the hobby in general and not just for its members. I think if the AMA had followed that logic
a lot more people would see a larger value in being a AMA member.
Aug 10, 2019, 04:31 PM
Registered User
smithdoor's Avatar
AMA needs to take one the NRA play book (free life time membership and AR15) just case of looting and you find police and a judge.
Give Congress free membership and kits to build

Dave


Quote:
Originally Posted by ira d
[/B]

I agree and also the AMA needs to advocate for the hobby in general and not just for its members. I think if the AMA had followed that logic
a lot more people would see a larger value in being a AMA member.
Last edited by smithdoor; Aug 10, 2019 at 04:38 PM.
Aug 10, 2019, 11:56 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithdoor
AMA needs to take one the NRA play book (free life time membership and AR15) just case of looting and you find police and a judge.
Give Congress free membership and kits to build

Dave
I don't think there are very many members of congress that would be interested in RC building or AMA membership.
Aug 11, 2019, 12:04 AM
Registered User
smithdoor's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ira d
I don't think there are very many members of congress that would be interested in RC building or AMA membership.
The AMA would lucky to find one

Dave


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion AMA received millions, yet John did what AMA couldn't franklin_m Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 42 May 27, 2017 03:29 PM
Discussion AMA Member or not, Please Read Sideslip Chit Chat 2 Apr 12, 2016 03:30 PM
Discussion AMA Good deal or not? HighFlyer2015 Multirotor Drone Talk 12 Feb 25, 2016 11:08 AM
Careful! How did they not blow themselves up ? Usta Bee Life, The Universe, and Politics 3 Dec 16, 2010 10:55 PM
Discussion i shorted my lipo but it did not blow the 10 amp fuze rumplestilskin Batteries and Chargers 3 Apr 18, 2006 06:47 PM