Petitioning AMA members for separation from drones

[witchfingers]

If you are at your field and a suspicious car drives up, grab your transmitter and go stand in the field and look up at the sky. Pretend to look at something that isn't there. Could be fun.

 

[garlandk]

I have to ask you this. DOES IT MATTER? you can try and debunk all the sightings that the FAA claimed (BTW, I tend to think that at least SOME of the reported sightings lacked credibility and the number of them was probably inflated), but what REALLY matters is that there are PLENTY of drones out there that are equipped and CAPABLE of interfering with manned flight. If they are out there and capable, you can bet it WILL happen, and IS a legitimate FAA concern. It is highly irresponsible to view it any other way (especially for a full-scale pilot).

Astro

From my full scale pilot standpoint a traditional model can interfere with manned traffic also. It has happened. We are all flying in the NAS no matter if we are flying FPV or non FPV

 

[garlandk]

Anyway good luck guys. I see where y'all are coming from and I respect that. Again no hard feelings.

 

[witchfingers]

The difference of course being no spotter, side or rear vision or sound with fpv. I can clearly hear a cessna over my 111 at my club and my spotter will warn me of manned aircraft behind me approaching. I know a guy in our club who sat in his kitchen and flew around his neighborhood with his fpv quad. Very cool that that is possible, but safe?

 

[garlandk]

The difference of course being no spotter, side or rear vision or sound with fpv. I can clearly hear a cessna over my 111 at my club and my spotter will warn me of manned aircraft behind me approaching. I know a guy in our club who sat in his kitchen and flew around his neighborhood with his fpv quad. Very cool that that is possible, but safe?

Not safe at all and I don't support that kind of flying.

 

[Terryscustom]

Check your E-mail, fresh info from the AMA.

 

[acerc]

Imagine that, the AMA helping us little people. Of course they are, it is in their best interest to protect their members. I do believe the AMA will succeed especially with all the emails, calls, and letters our representatives are getting in this regards. You know the congressmen have got to be wondering whom the FAA thinks they are sidestepping their laws.

 

[reyn3545]

Guys... the FAA isn't side-stepping section 336. Those rules deal with the ownership, design and building of model aircraft. The FAA's ruling, like it or not, deals only with the AIRSPACE that those aircraft fly in. I don't think anyone can reasonably deny the FAA's need and ability to govern that space.

Now, I do feel that the new guidelines are useless. We should ask the FAA 2 questions.....

1. How many law-abiding pilots, with properly identified aircraft, will knowingly operate those aircraft outside of the law?
2. How many people will ill-intent will register themselves, then put that identification on an aircraft that they leave behind at the scene of their ill-intent?

The answers will be Zero and Zero.

Knowing that, SOMEONE at the FAA has to understand how absolutely senseless these rulings are. They create needless administration, impossible policing, and improbable enforcement. Government in action.

 

[bigblueswope]

AMA grew some balls!!!!

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2015/12/17/hold-off-on-registering-model-aircraft/



BJ Swope

 

[reyn3545]

This week's ruling applies to HOBBYIST aircraft use. Soon, I think we can expect even tougher rulings that require certification for every single craft used for commercial purposes. The FAA was pretty clear in separating those 2 categories in their ruling.