AMA and Multirotors

[Sailor808]

and THAT is BS.

"In War: Resolution. In Defeat: Defiance. In Victory: Magnanimity. In Peace: Goodwill."

 

[Sailor808]

Double post

 

[RJ 706]

I wrote this on Feb. 4 2015 in response to the latest information from the President that was posted on the AMA blog. Just as the case with Al Young's earlier questioning of the direction of the AMA they have chosen to not respond.


Rusty Jarrett February 4, 2015 at 12:36 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

There are many facets of the direction the AMA is taking regarding multirotor aircraft that is troubling.

Being a one third partner in a group which represents the commercial use of said aircraft seems in direct conflict with the mission of the AMA. When concessions are made as are required in government dealings, how are you as a minor partner not placed in a subservient position to the needs of the majority partners and their commercial agenda?

Considering the ease of use for the multirotor owner I have little faith you will attract any serious numbers interested in driving to an AMA club, adhering to the rules of flight, and then feel a significant amount of fulfillment sharing airspace safely and predictably with pilots of traditional aircraft.

As members we are bound to support the policies and programs of the AMA, yet we were not given any information as to the fiscal commitment or the path the board had chosen until a vote was called for. You expect our support to implement any programs set forth, yet there was no concern shown as to our opinions or direction the membership would like to see as the AMA addresses the multi, quad, ” drone ” aspect of model flight.

With Respect and Concern,

Rusty Jarrett
AMA #946414

Report This Comment

 

[Islandflyer]

I wrote this on Feb. 4 2015 in response to the latest information from the President that was posted on the AMA blog. Just as the case with Al Young's earlier questioning of the direction of the AMA they have chosen to not respond.


Rusty Jarrett February 4, 2015 at 12:36 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.



With Respect and Concern,

Rusty Jarrett
AMA #946414

Report This Comment

Rusty, this all makes many of us feel less like members, and more like subjects.
I thought the AMA elected members were supposed to represent us, reflecting the concerns of the majority of the members...
Yet, the more I discuss these issues with fellow members and and others involved in RC Aircraft businesses, the more I realize how little support the current AMA leadership has in the the course they have chosen.
Unfortunately, many in the business are reluctant to making their position known , and have asked me not to quote them.

 

[RJ 706]

More disappointing is how few members take an interest in the direction the organization is taking.

 

[Islandflyer]

More disappointing is how few members take an interest in the direction the organization is taking.

Up to us to spread the word, and try to get it back on track.
Those who are social media savvy (not me!) are best equipped to spread the word...

 

[ChickenBalls]

More disappointing is how few members take an interest in the direction the organization is taking.

Most are going to set back and accept it, and really I see that point of view, remember we are only a few, the rest according to AMA:AMA believes, as do most in the model aviation community, that these new enthusiasts want to operate safely and responsibly.
Open your wallet, give them more money, and shut it (if they need your voice, AMA will speak for you) be a good little sheeple

 

[bigblueswope]

Sleepy, I feel your pain, but you have to admit you knew you were on shaky legal ground from the git-go. Pioneers are risk takers, and many end up wealthy. Unfortunately far more end up the other way. Hopefully the skies will open (in more than a metaphorical sense) and you can get back to taking pictures from the air.

Why was sleep on shaky ground?

Not trying to be an ass, just seeking understanding.

 

[CatalinaWOW]

Shaky in the sense that there was no established law that I have heard about on commercial operation of small remotely operated vehicles and potentially was violating established laws on operation of aircraft. Was operating something that seems like an aircraft or a model. AMA says if it is operated professionally it ain't a model in their books. If it is an aircraft he wasn't appropriately licensed and probably not operated by all of the rules. Could have operated like full scale, even though that doesn't exactly or really apply, but chose not to go that way for obvious cost reasons. Now at least one court seems to be saying full scale laws at least partially apply. This is all the opinion of a non-lawyer, but anytime you take on something which has risk of property damage or injury and doesn't have long custom of usage behind it you are at real risk from the various ambulance chasers out there. It seems you are at fairly significant risk even if there is long history and custom and you have deep pockets. Look what McDonalds found out about hot coffee.

 

[CatalinaWOW]

with

Sorry about the above, I am still getting the hang of quoting on this site.

Sorry Sleepy. I just assumed you knew that trying new stuff is risky legally. My kids and I toyed with the idea of commercial aerial photography using conventional R/C airframes but it didn't take much looking to realize that there was just to much legal risk for me to bite off. Guess I have just been sensitized by reading the aviation magazines and newspapers. One of the things that alerted me was the large lawsuit against Cessna by the widow of a pilot that won on the basis that Cessna was negligent for not using fuel injection on their mid-1950s general aviation aircraft since they "knew that fuel injection was less susceptible to carburetor icing". This lawsuit and its like nearly killed the GA manufacturing industry, and probably would have were it not for legislation specifically limiting liability of this type. As an engineer it was incredible to believe that anyone would prefer 1950s fuel injection for reliability over carburetion, in spite of it's advantage against icing conditions.

That example should show why your 30 years of experience, while factually and technically better for the application, may not carry much water.