PDA

View Full Version : New AMA officials elected - Lets Keep on Them!



CaliDave
7th December 2011, 07:19 PM
Hey All. So I'm an AMA member, and for the same reasons as having a HAM operators license I think we show good faith to not only have an AMA membership ($5 a month, it's nothing!), but also are part of a bigger group... something needed to swing things in our favor when it comes to laws, rules and ownership of frequencies, etc.

Any movement that wants to get something done needs a face... and the AMA is the best we have besides Tim & Alex and any other vendors. Is it ideal at this point as our figure head.... not really. But that only changes when people make things chance.

The AMA just completed elections and there will be new folks in charge at the New Year and I think it's a good time for us to both sign up and note when signing up that you've signed up with the assumption that the AMA will go to bat for FPV... that you are an FPVer and that's why you joined.

The current government holds office for 3 years so an obvious plan would be for a number of us (heck, every FPVer we could) to sign up saying we are part of an FPV movement to join with the understanding that the AMA would begin dialog with us to have a progressive approach to setting standards for FPV... That we would become a more respected element of the RC family AMA protects.

If they don't show progress in the first year we do not renew and make an obvious mark on the renewals and again, tell them this is why.

If we do something like this we can then show (again) that in good faith we are trying to become part of the overall accepted and respected part of the RC community... and we are a group big enough to make such a point.

I understand the frustration we have with impending rules we don't seem to be a part of, the reason most don't fly at AMA fields... but we can't just complain about things and not make changes ourselves. WE have the ability to work as a group and show we are still a group to take notice on... and sometimes a determined small group can be much louder than a complacent big group.

I'm not saying this is some "Occupy AMA" situation, rather a respectful call for us to collectively sign up for AMA or renewals and state our plan to join with the understanding we will be heard. And if not, then they have failed us, and that's on them.

Thoughts?

Myron
7th December 2011, 09:57 PM
Well, If I had any hopes that the AMA would do anything other than burry their head in the sand on this one, I would support it. However, being they are based on the whole 400 AGL and line of site deal (for safety purposes) IMO, they will NEVER go to bat for any activities that dont fit that criteria. As you all should know, the old school (AC-9157) is being re-written. The new one has help from the FAA and its supposed to encompass all the new electronics and basic operating guidelines.
A while back when AP started getting really popular, a group of guys got together and formed RCAPA. The intention was to have a strong voice in dealing with the AMA and the FAA.. The AMA shrugged the group off because the models(most of which were slowsticks) were flying outside of sanctioned AMA fields. This I believe is going to be the biggest issue. Just like the FAA is freaking out about unmanned aircraft in the NAS, the AMA will do the same about a model that is not in direct LOS.

Sorry, you asked for thoughts... this one is mine and only worth about 2 cents!

Myron

CaliDave
7th December 2011, 11:28 PM
No, thank you Myron for your thoughts. You make some good points.

But I wonder, who/when/how was the 400' AGL rule determined? Times change and my point is that if you give up then you're just sitting by waiting for the powers that be to come up with something. It's like saying you can only dive to 50' as a diver. We all who do this understand but somehow someone doesn't... and as had been pointed out the 400' rule is a problem for far more than FPVers... gliders, tons of LOS flyers who don't even have methods to determine this, but you can be sure this is broken at AMA fields all over the country every day... many times simply because pilots don't even know it. In many cases we do know this information, and it's fairly simple to add these components. I'd wager in many cases the average FPVer knows his rig better than most LOS pilots.

To me there is tons of sky to share, and when all the land is owned and taken and even paid for by you and me but unusable cause of lame rules, at least we have the skies. With no collective effort the sky are in the hands of others. Also, id doesn't take a lot of money and time to be make a collective mark. There really is power in numbers... but of course one isn't much but another bothered person.

I just find it sad that there isn't more of a collective movement to make our voices heard, show how safe we are, and that its been going on for a long while. Outside of the AMA who's not been a big supporter, where are all these accidents due to lack of buddy boxes, etc. They aren't there cause they don't happen... so it's a logical argument to ask that they be revisited... WE have to ask.

h0tr0d
8th December 2011, 12:30 AM
As I was reading through the 2012 rules, it seems as though the 400ft AGL wording has changed to...

"(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport, without notifying the airport operator."

I think that's a pretty reasonable request and is only limiting when you fly near an airport. The LOS part and the buddy box part are just total BS though. Maybe I could register my LRS as an AMA member? LOL....he "sees" radio waves, so his visual LOS is probably 25+ miles or so right? He's also hooked up through my trainer port and "in command" ;)

prelator
14th December 2011, 11:32 AM
To me there is tons of sky to share, and when all the land is owned and taken and even paid for by you and me but unusable cause of lame rules, at least we have the skies.
Cue the Firefly theme song: "You can't take the skies from me....." :)

CaliDave
14th December 2011, 01:05 PM
^ Hehe. Didn't see that one coming. ;-) But true.