AMA's Response To The U.S. DOT announcement

[SteveMann]

I am not sure I could quote one recent media story about an RC airplane.

People don't report aircraft sightings. From a distance you can't tell a model aircraft at 100 ft from a Cessna at 1,000 ft. The human eye is absolutely near useless to determine size and altitude of something in the air.

Remember this hoax

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

A surprising number of people fell for it.

Unfortunately,there have been some hobby aircraft accidents in the news, though not recent.
The FAA frequently likes to say that "they are aware" of five deaths by "these kind of aircraft" when talking about personal drones. Here are the death by model aircraft news articles that I could find:

A Swiss Man Was Killed By His Remote-Controlled Helicopter
Baby dies after radio-controlled helicopter goes rogue at event - Nation | The Star Online
Man Dies In Horrific Remote-Controlled Helicopter Accident In NYC Park
Operator of remote control helicopter dies - The Local
Man Killed by Model Helicopter - RC Groups

All of the aircraft involved were gas-powered model helicopters with rotor diameters of 3 ft or more. All of the deaths were to someone involved in the flight.

 

[koviatt]

All your Phantom are belong to us!

AMA is pretty toothless and they only represent a decreasing minority of drone users. Most of the new breed have never heard of the AMA and have no interest in it.

I agree. I am a former AMA member. And the generation behind me is suspicious and disinterested in organizations like AMA. I believe an honest look at their membership numbers will reflect this. There is a real cultural difference behind this attitude and trend. We see it in other club affiliations, church, religion, hobbies across the board.

So it's not only happening in RC flying clubs. Amateur radio is having this same debate. The ARRL (the AMA of ham radio hobby) is struggling to attract new young members. The old members are unwelcoming of the new digital radio technology and resent the new guys clogging up the airwaves with all that newfangled digital technology instead of using older communications formats like morse code and voice. They resent the new guys coming into the radio conversations because they never really "learned how to do radio." Does any of this sound familiar?

Kent (N4KRO)

 

[zezrum]

When I read the AMA's statement, it appears to me that it is directed towards their base, and it is in no way comforting to pilots flying non-traditional aircraft. They use that word "traditional" in two places:

"...traditional model aircraft, ... not be subject to the registration process"
"...traditional model aircraft must remain exempt from the registration process"

There is no mention of any effort to represent the non-traditional folks, other than conceding that toys shouldn't be registered.

I find that disheartening. I would have preferred that the AMA have the courage to speak out and encourage the DOT/FAA to address the so called problem in ways that actually will make a difference. Instead they're supporting a reactive model that includes a national registry of drone owners and partnership with local law enforcement. The lack of leadership by the AMA is disappointing, and I expected more.

 

[GoodnNuff]

When I read the AMA's statement, it appears to me that it is directed towards their base, and it is in no way comforting to pilots flying non-traditional aircraft. They use that word "traditional" in two places:

"...traditional model aircraft, ... not be subject to the registration process"
"...traditional model aircraft must remain exempt from the registration process"

There is no mention of any effort to represent the non-traditional folks, other than conceding that toys shouldn't be registered.

I find that disheartening. I would have preferred that the AMA have the courage to speak out and encourage the DOT/FAA to address the so called problem in ways that actually will make a difference. Instead they're supporting a reactive model that includes a national registry of drone owners and partnership with local law enforcement. The lack of leadership by the AMA is disappointing, and I expected more.

"Traditional Model Aircraft" - the balsa wood and paper or foam fixed wings are not the problem and should be exempt. Comparing them to a drone is like comparing a motorized skate board to a Corvette.
Traditional Model Aircraft are incapable of autonomous flight, have short range, can't hover or maintain a GPS or altitude lock, etc., etc. They are in a whole different class, which of course the AMA's recognizes. The AMA is actually our biggest ally and lobbying organization currently. So I'd do a bit more research before you throw the baby out with the bath water because you didn't like the wording of their statement.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

One said the Phantom wouldn't be on the list including myself TJ.

I was responding to this...​

I hope so! Their statement confuses me because it sounds that they may be inclined to require the Phantom to be registered since it is not considered a "toy-type"

 

[koviatt]

"Traditional Model Aircraft" - the balsa wood and paper or foam fixed wings are not the problem and should be exempt. Comparing them to a drone is like comparing a motorized skate board to a Corvette.
Traditional Model Aircraft are incapable of autonomous flight, have short range, can't hover or maintain a GPS or altitude lock, etc., etc. They are in a whole different class, which of course the AMA's recognizes. The AMA is actually our biggest ally and lobbying organization currently. So I'd do a bit more research before you throw the baby out with the bath water because you didn't like the wording of their statement.

I am an experience RC pilot. I have been flying traditional craft for several years. The definitions above may have been accurate 10 years ago but it is no longer the case.

Pilots flying "traditional" aircraft have been using technology for autonomous flight for many years now. In fact they fly many miles away and higher than 400 feet. They do this with telemetry and FPV. All you need to do is look at the RC pilots forum to see that these "traditional aircraft" pilots pioneered the "drone" technology. They can fly waypoints, they can fly loitering around in a small circle much longer than most of our quads can. They fly via GPS. They have course and altitude lock. They can and do just about everything we can do on the phantom. Even hover in certain wind conditions.

I have been part of that movement, and have a full collection of both traditional fixed wing intelligent "drones" (using that term of autonomous unmanned aircraft) and cp blade, tri, quad, and hex copters.

I think it is more accurate to say that traditional aircraft clearly can fit into this same category as our DJI aircraft.

 

[GoodnNuff]

I am an experience RC pilot. I have been flying traditional craft for several years. The definitions above may have been accurate 10 years ago but it is no longer the case.

Pilots flying "traditional" aircraft have been using technology for autonomous flight for many years now. In fact they fly many miles away and higher than 400 feet. They do this with telemetry and FPV. All you need to do is look at the RC pilots forum to see that these "traditional aircraft" pilots pioneered the "drone" technology. They can fly waypoints, they can fly loitering around in a small circle much longer than most of our quads can. They fly via GPS. They have course and altitude lock. They can and do just about everything we can do on the phantom. Even hover in certain wind conditions.

I have been part of that movement, and have a full collection of both traditional fixed wing intelligent "drones" (using that term of autonomous unmanned aircraft) and cp blade, tri, quad, and hex copters.

I think it is more accurate to say that traditional aircraft clearly can fit into this same category as our DJI aircraft.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. A fixed wing aircraft becomes a "drone" once autonomous technology is installed on it. Not all drones are multiroters. Once a fixed wing aircraft can fly a pre-programmed flight, hold it's altitude, fly long range, and fly FPV, it is no longer a "traditional model aircraft" is it?
Again, "Traditional Model Aircraft" are not the problem and will most likely be excluded.
Non traditional RC aircraft that can fly far, high, and without constant stick input from a pilot, will be requred to be registered regardless of whether a multiroter, fixed wing, or helicopter.

 

[koviatt]

GoodnNuff,
Yes that makes more sense to me as you clarified. So are you saying that you think the registration will not only focus on helicopter-type craft, or will be more broad to include any aircraft that has the capabilities we discussed here? And also wonder if the restriction will be for commercially available equipment or even home brew. All questions to ponder, I suppose.

 

[SteveMann]

GoodnNuff,
Yes that makes more sense to me as you clarified. So are you saying that you think the registration will not only focus on helicopter-type craft, or will be more broad to include any aircraft that has the capabilities we discussed here? And also wonder if the restriction will be for commercially available equipment or even home brew. All questions to ponder, I suppose.

This is going to be the biggest problem that the Task Force will have - define a personal drone.
How do you define a fixed-wing drone that doesn't define a hobby airplane model? How do you define a multirotor drone without including a model Sikorsky H-34 Seahorse or SH-60 Seahawk? Will the Task Force recommend registering all model aircraft? This is sure to fuel the animosity that the modelers already have against SUAS operators.
Goodnuff's argument that autonomous flight could be the qualifier won't work because most autopilot modules have the ability to fly autonomously, just add software. This would be like saying that if I never fly my Phantom autonomously it becomes a traditional hobby aircraft.
My guess is that the Task Force will recommend registering anything over one pound. Including hobby aircraft. And the AMA will go nuts.

I would put money on the proposed registration not happening this year.

 

[GoodnNuff]

This is going to be the biggest problem that the Task Force will have - define a personal drone.
How do you define a fixed-wing drone that doesn't define a hobby airplane model? How do you define a multirotor drone without including a model Sikorsky H-34 Seahorse or SH-60 Seahawk? Will the Task Force recommend registering all model aircraft? This is sure to fuel the animosity that the modelers already have against SUAS operators.
Goodnuff's argument that autonomous flight could be the qualifier won't work because most autopilot modules have the ability to fly autonomously, just add software. This would be like saying that if I never fly my Phantom autonomously it becomes a traditional hobby aircraft.
My guess is that the Task Force will recommend registering anything over one pound. Including hobby aircraft. And the AMA will go nuts.

I would put money on the proposed registration not happening this year.

It doesn't matter how you fly or don't fly your aircraft, or whether or not you ever fly in an autonomous mode. If the aircraft has the ability to fly autonomously, it will be required to be registered. If you are caught flying an unregistered aircraft I imagine it will be handled in a manner similar to being caught driving an unregistered automobile - you will be fined and your vehicle impounded until it is registered.

 

[SteveMann]

It doesn't matter how you fly or don't fly your aircraft, or whether or not you ever fly in an autonomous mode. If the aircraft has the ability to fly autonomously, it will be required to be registered. If you are caught flying an unregistered aircraft I imagine it will be handled in a manner similar to being caught driving an unregistered automobile - you will be fined and your vehicle impounded until it is registered.

Excluding hobby aircraft is likely to be an academic exercise. See my post here: BREAKING!!! U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered | Page 15 | DJI Phantom Forum
The FAA makes it clear that they intend to register all aircraft, including traditional hobby aircraft.

 

[GoodnNuff]

Excluding hobby aircraft is likely to be an academic exercise. See my post here: BREAKING!!! U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered | Page 15 | DJI Phantom Forum
The FAA makes it clear that they intend to register all aircraft, including traditional hobby aircraft.

We will just have to wait and see. It would be foolish to include model aircraft and I think the FAA knows that. Because one line states "model aircraft" I doubt that my Blade Nano or Horizon Hobby Super Cub will have to be registered. This is a daunting task for the government, I doubt that they will further complicate it by requiring Park Flyers, indoor flyers, rubber band powered models (yes, they even have national competitions with these "model planes") and Control line flyers to be registered - all of which are considered "model aircraft." We can both speculate all we want, but that is all we're doing, is speculating.

 

[jason]

I was responding to this...​

That should read. "No one said the Phantom wouldn't be on the list including myself TJ." So I didn't proof read before sending.


Units Per Second 29.97
Source Width 2704
Source Height 1524
Source Pixel Aspect Ratio 1
Comp Pixel Aspect Ratio 1


End of Keyframe Data

 

[koviatt]

The "one pound" criteria seems familiar. AMA has a weight classification in their system as well. So that idea is not foreign to them. I hate to say this for fear of a flame war, but me thinks AMA has an elevated opinion of their influence in the upcoming policy. I'm with you Steve, I'd put my money on further delays and legal battles.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

That should read. "No one said the Phantom wouldn't be on the list including myself TJ." So I didn't proof read before sending.


Units Per Second 29.97
Source Width 2704
Source Height 1524
Source Pixel Aspect Ratio 1
Comp Pixel Aspect Ratio 1


End of Keyframe Data

 

[SteveMann]

and Control line flyers

Control Line flyers are technically tethered aircraft and exempt from FAA rules.
The FAA never anticipated moored aircraft, but 14 CFR § 101.1 does cover moored balloons and kites which could be argued as including a tethered model aircraft.

 

[QuadcopterFL]

All that will happen is that the overseas companies will just make "other" models that are not on the list, but have all the features. If the FAA does make this rule, they have to list components/features of a multirotor that will or will not include a specific model to really make it effective. Does GPS put it on the list, a compass, telemetry....seems like a mess to me.

 

[GoodnNuff]

Control Line flyers are technically tethered aircraft and exempt from FAA rules.
The FAA never anticipated moored aircraft, but 14 CFR § 101.1 does cover moored balloons and kites which could be argued as including a tethered model aircraft.

Sorry, I wasn't talking about how the FAA defines aircraft, but how the AMA technically defines traditional model aircraft. Sorry you if you were confused...