Ending mini-lawyering ... is it past time for AMA to require members follow the law?
05-26-2020, 07:07 AM
#101
Senior Member
The question now isn't how much more is there to screw up. The question now is how much time does the AMA have left due to his maneuvering and duplicity while trying to get the FAA to do his bidding. We all know the FAA doesn't trust the AMA and that makes the AMA nothing but a hinderance that's going to be put out of its misery, kind of like a mosquito. The question is, to be blunt, how much more blood will the AMA faithful be willing to feed the mosquito before it gets "swatted"?
*** The reason lying come so easy for these government affairs reps is all AMA knows about these meetings
with the FAA and other officials is what they're told. And it's always spin. You can see it in Tyler Dobbs. He's
becoming a Hanson Mini-Me.
@BarracudaHockey
Being in contact with someone at the FAA and being in contact with decision makers are two different things.
Last edited by ECHO24; 05-26-2020 at 07:33 AM.
05-26-2020, 07:14 AM
#102
That's not what he said, we have regular contact with the FAA
What he said/meant was the FAA is not commenting on the NPRM, and that's with ANYONE, until it finishes the comment process and moves on to either publishing or revising it.
Assuming of course that we were listening to the same thing.
What he said/meant was the FAA is not commenting on the NPRM, and that's with ANYONE, until it finishes the comment process and moves on to either publishing or revising it.
Assuming of course that we were listening to the same thing.
05-26-2020, 08:00 AM
#103
Senior Member
That's not what he said, we have regular contact with the FAA
What he said/meant was the FAA is not commenting on the NPRM, and that's with ANYONE, until it finishes the comment process and moves on to either publishing or revising it.
Assuming of course that we were listening to the same thing.
What he said/meant was the FAA is not commenting on the NPRM, and that's with ANYONE, until it finishes the comment process and moves on to either publishing or revising it.
Assuming of course that we were listening to the same thing.
05-26-2020, 11:18 AM
#104
Thread Starter
In all honesty, that's not saying much. "Regular contact" could mean anything from hours long in depth meetings on substantive issues, or emails and phone calls that don't get answered. It isn't the number of them that matter, it's the RESULTS they produce. And to date, there's been precious little of the latter.
BTW, speaking of results: Where's that blanket waiver to LAW that limits class G flights to 400?
BTW, speaking of results: Where's that blanket waiver to LAW that limits class G flights to 400?
05-26-2020, 11:19 AM
#105
Thread Starter
05-26-2020, 11:48 AM
#107
Thread Starter
Or is it that is their way of keeping the unwashed masses uninformed ... but throwing out obstacles to getting information - like some need to get info only from your VP.
Or maybe there hasn't really been much progress - which would explain the compartmentalization of information.
05-26-2020, 12:26 PM
#108
05-26-2020, 12:36 PM
#109
Senior Member
05-26-2020, 01:38 PM
#110
Senior Member
over Google and their idea for non-remote ID aircraft, "non-equipped network participant". It requires all the things AMA
is supposedly against: individual aircraft registration, a smart phone with internet service, an on-site internet connection,
a USS subscription, and data sent in in real-time. The FAA refers to it as "software-based flight notification with telemetry".
AMA supports declared intent, a LAANC-like plan where the location and time of flight would be sent in beforehand
from a computer or other device. Tyler Dobbs says Google and AMA "are the same page". Do you think,
A. Tyler Dobbs doesn't know the difference between declared intent and non-equipped participant. Or,
B. Tyler Dobbs knows the difference and is deliberately trying to mislead members?
05-26-2020, 02:17 PM
#111
Let me ask you this:
1) Would the FAA be trying to control everything at this point, both drones and planks, had the AMA been honestly trying to work with the FAA?
2) Would the FAA be listening to what the AMA says if Rich Hanson wasn't trying to manipulate and control the results of the talks between the two organizations?
It's been pretty obvious to many of us that the AMA brass has been trying to manipulate the FAA into requiring anyone that flies anything from the ground to be required to be a member of the AMA. It's also pretty obvious to many of us that the FAA has been resisting that ploy in many ways. If it's so obvious this game has been going on to many of us, why are so many still oblivious to the fact this game has been going on for several years?
05-26-2020, 04:02 PM
#112
The "WE" are anyone that's paying attention to what's going on.
Let me ask you this:
1) Would the FAA be trying to control everything at this point, both drones and planks, had the AMA been honestly trying to work with the FAA?
2) Would the FAA be listening to what the AMA says if Rich Hanson wasn't trying to manipulate and control the results of the talks between the two organizations?
It's been pretty obvious to many of us that the AMA brass has been trying to manipulate the FAA into requiring anyone that flies anything from the ground to be required to be a member of the AMA. It's also pretty obvious to many of us that the FAA has been resisting that ploy in many ways. If it's so obvious this game has been going on to many of us, why are so many still oblivious to the fact this game has been going on for several years?
Let me ask you this:
1) Would the FAA be trying to control everything at this point, both drones and planks, had the AMA been honestly trying to work with the FAA?
2) Would the FAA be listening to what the AMA says if Rich Hanson wasn't trying to manipulate and control the results of the talks between the two organizations?
It's been pretty obvious to many of us that the AMA brass has been trying to manipulate the FAA into requiring anyone that flies anything from the ground to be required to be a member of the AMA. It's also pretty obvious to many of us that the FAA has been resisting that ploy in many ways. If it's so obvious this game has been going on to many of us, why are so many still oblivious to the fact this game has been going on for several years?
Here's a fact. You, and nobody else on this forum, has any idea what is going on inside the FAA. You can certainly have your opinions, but they are just that, opinions. So to state that "We all know" anything is a false statement on the face of it.
Now, my personal opinion from early on was that the AMA screwed up big time by not drawing a clear distinction between "drones" and model airplanes. Instead the AMA tried to "embrace" the drone community, which was a community that did not give one whit about the AMA. The handwriting was on the wall from the day that model airplanes were included in the definition of a small unmanned aircraft system.
We can discuss and debate the whys and what-fors until the cows come home, but none of that will change anything. We have been essentially doomed for several years. This hobby is going to look completely different in 3 years, assuming it even survives. Rather than spend my time arguing over whose fault it was, ad nauseam, I plan to enjoy what I can, while I can, and then look to the future once the full scope of the final RID Rule is known. Ironically, it is the RID Rule that will have the greatest negative impact on us and not the provisions of Section 349.
One thing I am very curious about, is why a person who has openly stated they are not an AMA member is spending so much time and effort discussing the AMA? You seem deeply invested. Why is that?
05-26-2020, 04:44 PM
#113
So essentially you are attempting to elevate the opinons of a few people on this forum to the level of fact.
Here's a fact. You, and nobody else on this forum, has any idea what is going on inside the FAA. You can certainly have your opinions, but they are just that, opinions. So to state that "We all know" anything is a false statement on the face of it. Not totally. We know the FAA has to follow guidelines given to it by Congress. We also know that Congress is in the middle of a "knee jerk" reaction to the drone issue. That means the FAA has to respond to Congress with a set of rules that will satisfy Congress. These are all givens. There is only so much the FAA can do to meet the requirements Congress has put out so anyone that knows aviation can have a fairly good idea of what the FAA is going to do
Now, my personal opinion from early on was that the AMA screwed up big time by not drawing a clear distinction between "drones" and model airplanes. Instead the AMA tried to "embrace" the drone community, which was a community that did not give one whit about the AMA. The handwriting was on the wall from the day that model airplanes were included in the definition of a small unmanned aircraft system. On this we totally agree
We can discuss and debate the whys and what-fors until the cows come home, but none of that will change anything. We have been essentially doomed for several years. This hobby is going to look completely different in 3 years, assuming it even survives. Rather than spend my time arguing over whose fault it was, ad nauseam, I plan to enjoy what I can, while I can, and then look to the future once the full scope of the final RID Rule is known. Ironically, it is the RID Rule that will have the greatest negative impact on us and not the provisions of Section 349. I can deal with this as well. No arguments on that either
One thing I am very curious about, is why a person who has openly stated they are not an AMA member is spending so much time and effort discussing the AMA? You seem deeply invested. Why is that?
I build R/C models, I operate R/C models, I race R/C models. What I see happening with the AMA and FAA could also happen in the communities that I am a member of. I also have a pair of Kadet Jr's that I started working on, from plans. When this whole thing started, I stopped working on them as I want to know if I will be able to fly them or just hang them from the ceiling when they're done. If I won't be able to fly them, I can't see the point in buying a .35 and three bladed prop for one, which is getting floats. I also have plans for three 50cc airplanes, a Katana, an Edge and a Pitts M-10. Again, it comes down to is it worth building them? I'm sure that, by now, you can understand why I'm so "invested" in what happens with R/Cs and the FAA. Truth be told, I really don't care about what happens with the AMA. I do want to be able to fly my planes if/when I get them finished. The question now is very simple:
Will we be able to fly anything once the fighting between the AMA and FAA is over? If not, I won't be finishing any of the five planes I have started or waiting in the wings as it's not worth wasting the money on them
Here's a fact. You, and nobody else on this forum, has any idea what is going on inside the FAA. You can certainly have your opinions, but they are just that, opinions. So to state that "We all know" anything is a false statement on the face of it. Not totally. We know the FAA has to follow guidelines given to it by Congress. We also know that Congress is in the middle of a "knee jerk" reaction to the drone issue. That means the FAA has to respond to Congress with a set of rules that will satisfy Congress. These are all givens. There is only so much the FAA can do to meet the requirements Congress has put out so anyone that knows aviation can have a fairly good idea of what the FAA is going to do
Now, my personal opinion from early on was that the AMA screwed up big time by not drawing a clear distinction between "drones" and model airplanes. Instead the AMA tried to "embrace" the drone community, which was a community that did not give one whit about the AMA. The handwriting was on the wall from the day that model airplanes were included in the definition of a small unmanned aircraft system. On this we totally agree
We can discuss and debate the whys and what-fors until the cows come home, but none of that will change anything. We have been essentially doomed for several years. This hobby is going to look completely different in 3 years, assuming it even survives. Rather than spend my time arguing over whose fault it was, ad nauseam, I plan to enjoy what I can, while I can, and then look to the future once the full scope of the final RID Rule is known. Ironically, it is the RID Rule that will have the greatest negative impact on us and not the provisions of Section 349. I can deal with this as well. No arguments on that either
One thing I am very curious about, is why a person who has openly stated they are not an AMA member is spending so much time and effort discussing the AMA? You seem deeply invested. Why is that?
I build R/C models, I operate R/C models, I race R/C models. What I see happening with the AMA and FAA could also happen in the communities that I am a member of. I also have a pair of Kadet Jr's that I started working on, from plans. When this whole thing started, I stopped working on them as I want to know if I will be able to fly them or just hang them from the ceiling when they're done. If I won't be able to fly them, I can't see the point in buying a .35 and three bladed prop for one, which is getting floats. I also have plans for three 50cc airplanes, a Katana, an Edge and a Pitts M-10. Again, it comes down to is it worth building them? I'm sure that, by now, you can understand why I'm so "invested" in what happens with R/Cs and the FAA. Truth be told, I really don't care about what happens with the AMA. I do want to be able to fly my planes if/when I get them finished. The question now is very simple:
Will we be able to fly anything once the fighting between the AMA and FAA is over? If not, I won't be finishing any of the five planes I have started or waiting in the wings as it's not worth wasting the money on them
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 05-26-2020 at 05:18 PM.
05-26-2020, 06:23 PM
#114
Not totally. We know the FAA has to follow guidelines given to it by Congress. We also know that Congress is in the middle of a "knee jerk" reaction to the drone issue. That means the FAA has to respond to Congress with a set of rules that will satisfy Congress. These are all givens. There is only so much the FAA can do to meet the requirements Congress has put out so anyone that knows aviation can have a fairly good idea of what the FAA is going to do
none of that answers the original statement that "we all know the FAA doesn't trust the AMA". I mean, it was a nice dissertation, but it still fails to answer the central fact that nobody in this thread "knows" what is in the minds of the FAA people working on this.
WRT to the FAA/AMA "fighting", well, a gain, I do not know they are (and neither do you. You are of the opinion they are, but that is just what it is, an opinion.)
I do believe that the FAA is going to do pretty much what they proposed in the RID NPRM, mostly due to the reported pressure they are getting from DHS, etc. I also believe the AMA is not going to have much affect on that outcome. Maybe some minor tweaks, but nothing major. So, moving forward the real question is, will there be an RC hobby on the other side of this.
05-26-2020, 06:42 PM
#115
none of that answers the original statement that "we all know the FAA doesn't trust the AMA". I mean, it was a nice dissertation, but it still fails to answer the central fact that nobody in this thread "knows" what is in the minds of the FAA people working on this.
WRT to the FAA/AMA "fighting", well, a gain, I do not know they are (and neither do you. You are of the opinion they are, but that is just what it is, an opinion.)
I do believe that the FAA is going to do pretty much what they proposed in the RID NPRM, mostly due to the reported pressure they are getting from DHS, etc. I also believe the AMA is not going to have much affect on that outcome. Maybe some minor tweaks, but nothing major. So, moving forward the real question is, will there be an RC hobby on the other side of this.
Would you trust an organization that is trying to get a government agency to make it law that you have to be a member of that organization to be able to participate in an activity that organization is involved with? That is what the AMA has been trying to do all along, get membership to be mandatory to be able to fly anything. With that said, I know several of us can see the AMA trying to make that happen.
05-26-2020, 07:42 PM
#116
Hydro, let me ask you this. You have mentioned your other hobby you enjoy with your wife. Having a wife myself whom dancing was a big part of her life I have somewhat of an understanding how dedicated one must be to to reach a level of proficiency. Not too different from becoming proficient at piloting an R/C aircraft. You have also criticized people who are happy to get up and do the electric slide, boot scootin boogie, ten step, tush push etc as the type that don't put in much effort but seem to enjoy themselves. Perhaps we could refer to that type as R/C sport flyers. Now just suppose that some government agency decided that your level of dancing was too dangerous and decided to regulate all C/W dancing down to the level of the " sport dancers ". Then many of those dancers tried to convince you that the government is right and kept telling you that you need to dumb down your dancing for safety reasons. How would you react to that?
05-26-2020, 08:17 PM
#117
none of that answers the original statement that "we all know the FAA doesn't trust the AMA". I mean, it was a nice dissertation, but it still fails to answer the central fact that nobody in this thread "knows" what is in the minds of the FAA people working on this.
WRT to the FAA/AMA "fighting", well, a gain, I do not know they are (and neither do you. You are of the opinion they are, but that is just what it is, an opinion.)
I do believe that the FAA is going to do pretty much what they proposed in the RID NPRM, mostly due to the reported pressure they are getting from DHS, etc. I also believe the AMA is not going to have much affect on that outcome. Maybe some minor tweaks, but nothing major. So, moving forward the real question is, will there be an RC hobby on the other side of this.
I totally agree with you that I believe the most likely future for our hobby will lie in some prebuilt flying "drone" with an RID unit integrated into it's core. If we are really lucky maybe they will allow us to paint them different colors, and that will be the extent of the "building" side of our hobby. There will be flying toys if we want to agree to having all of our information collected and collated in some terribly insecure government database. They will be controlled and have their capabilities severely limited. We may be allowed to fly our current model aircraft in pens they will call FRIAs for a limited amount of time but after that, the hobby as we known it will be no more. What can I say, I'm a realist.
All that said I hope that I am totally wrong on this one, that somewhere in the world of politics there remains some small shred of real intelligence and something more reasonable is worked out. I won't be giving up and I will do whatever it takes to try to make my predictions untrue. I am a member of the AMA, I was once proud to be a member of the AMA. I never thought I would see the day when our organization would resort to using regulations to try to force people who wanted nothing to do with us to become members in order to fly and this is what really lies behind the embracing the drones strategy. I would rather have a smaller membership of true RC modelers than to even attempt to bring in those who don't believe in rules or thinking about flying safely but rather about getting that spectacular shot or doing idiotic things like building diving down the sides of high rises at high speeds. These people should be locked away because they are a danger to themselves and others. No I'm not even kidding...
Mind you, when I say "true RC modelers" there is room in there for folks who enjoy building and flying multirotors, safely. I know a few folks who build and race "drones" and I would consider them to be true modelers.
05-26-2020, 08:43 PM
#118
First off, Speed, I don't criticize others for line dancing, just that many have to get intoxicated first. Many people(in this case, mostly the guys) are afraid they won't look good(like as in "macho") on the dance floor so it takes the anti-inhibition qualities of alcohol to get them on the floor. Once they get there, they are normally too drunk to do anything to the beat of the music or with the slightest bit of coordination. Now, getting to your questions, it's never going to happen as there are several national federations that have thousands of dancers as members. Unlike flying, however, a majority of those that dance regularly are also very active in their clubs, councils and state federations. I've personally held offices for over 20 years, the wife for several, so I know how dedicated most are. To learn to ballroom dance, for example, takes months of lessons, thousands of dollars and a serious commitment to learn one or two rhythms. Same goes for round dancing, square dancing, clogging, ballet, contra and, believe it or not, disco. Those that actually learn to line dance also practice the patterns to get good at it, soon followed by adding some "freestyling" into the patterns. Your casual "bar room wanna be" normally has a hard time staying upright after a few(?) drinks. Now, to compare that to flying, your "bar room wanna be" would be a drone pilot that needs little to no instruction to fly. Your sport flyers would equate to those that have gone through basic dancing classes while your competition pilots are those that, like dancers that take years of lessons and, in some cases, actually do compete.
With all that said, there are callers and cuers that are dumbing it down so that those that rarely dance can participate. Needless to say, those that dance several times a week will avoid those dances and go to dances where the level of difficulty is higher.
Now, just out of curiosity, you said your wife was a dancer. What changed so she now isn't? Was it that you're not one or was it something else?
With all that said, there are callers and cuers that are dumbing it down so that those that rarely dance can participate. Needless to say, those that dance several times a week will avoid those dances and go to dances where the level of difficulty is higher.
Now, just out of curiosity, you said your wife was a dancer. What changed so she now isn't? Was it that you're not one or was it something else?
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 05-26-2020 at 08:53 PM.
05-27-2020, 04:20 AM
#119
Hydro, you still didn't answer the question of how would you feel if some government agency forbid you and your wife to dance at your level. Keep in mind that I have most likely paralleled your investment in both time and money getting to my proficiency with my flying. As for my wife, a combination of things, a knee injury, having kids and thyroid cancer. I myself am a poor dancer but when we are someplace that is playing music and I see that look in her eye I take her hand and we head for the floor or dance where we stand. I have no problem looking non macho to put a smile on my beloved's face.
05-27-2020, 05:08 AM
#120
Hydro, you still didn't answer the question of how would you feel if some government agency forbid you and your wife to dance at your level. Keep in mind that I have most likely paralleled your investment in both time and money getting to my proficiency with my flying. As for my wife, a combination of things, a knee injury, having kids and thyroid cancer. I myself am a poor dancer but when we are someplace that is playing music and I see that look in her eye I take her hand and we head for the floor or dance where we stand. I have no problem looking non macho to put a smile on my beloved's face.
1) Every person dances at the level they want to dance at. We have, in the square dance community, 8 levels. There is no way that those that dance Challenge 4(the highest level) are going to be forced to dance at a lower level. They will just go to someone's house and dance it anyway. Gee, does that sound like some flyers, ignore the law and do what you want. Kind of sounds like Rich Hanson to me
2) If someone falls and gets hurt, we have a procedure in place that lets the caller, cuer and the rest of the dancers know that someone is down and needs help. The person that fell is, at the same time, protected from further injury by the process of letting everyone know that person is down.
We don't have to worry about getting in the way of traffic, be it planes or motor vehicles. We also don't have to worry about spinning props or jet exhaust. It's actually more dangerous to get to and from the dance site than it is to dance, once you get there. Sorry, not going to go into a hypothetical situation on this one. This problem was caused by the AMA officers and legal staff. They need to figure out how to fix it before we don't have a place left to fly.
I just had a thought. Maybe you should read the thread titled "Suggestions on better leveraging our membership", it might give you a few ideas and some insite to what others are thinking may be the way to save the beloved hobby and your precious AMA
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 05-27-2020 at 05:15 AM.
05-27-2020, 05:45 AM
#121
05-27-2020, 07:17 AM
#122
Senior Member
except for the few things the FAA asks for input on. It' mostly, "The FAA considered X and rejected it because
of Y". One of those things rejected is an app-based solution for RC aircraft not equipped with remote ID.
So when someone like Tylyer Dobbs trys to spin it otherwise you have to take it with a grain of salt. Based on
the NPRM model aircraft flying will soon be outlawed except at FRIAs.
And though you may not want to discuss the reasons "ad infinitum", those 4 out of 5 model flyers about to get
kicked out of the hobby might. And there may have been a different outcome if more non-AMA members had
realized earlier that what AMA does affects everyone and not just members and had become "deeply invested".
05-27-2020, 07:35 AM
#123
And the manufacturers of RC equipment should be leading the effort to stop this. Just as they should have been all along. Putting profits ahead of safety is the worst mixed message that can be sent. FUTABA isn't as bad as DJI but it still isn't an angel. Every receiver you build today should have remote ID built in. Transmitters, even the top of the line should not have TV screens built in. Make it harder on the guys who want to fly illegally - don't pander to them.
Last edited by FUTABA-RC; 05-27-2020 at 07:37 AM.
05-27-2020, 12:42 PM
#124
Thread Starter
I just spent the last couple hours going through all the AMA EC minutes from July 2011 up through the most recent posted and am more than ever convinced that:
- AMA is not respected by the FAA. Multiple discussions of slow rolling decisions, not taking action actions, etc. It appears to me that AMA leaders put way too much faith in what they were hearing from FAA, and lost sight of what FAA was actually doing (or not doing).
- FAA has been telegraphing for years that significant change is coming. Mention of possible hard altitude limits goes back almost ten years. AMA appears to have clung to what they heard in meetings vs. the signal being sent by FAA (see above).
- AMA mentions several times becoming more serious about their safety program, including but not limited to more consistent enforcement of their safety code, regional safety directors responsible for consistent enforcement of rules at clubs, even a more rigorous flight training program for large and / or fast aircraft. These are nearly always mentioned in close association w/ FAA meetings. By all indications the AMA took little if any meaningful action in response to these - never getting serious about their safety program.
- Exceptional deference to Rich Hanson with respect to FAA dealings. And we see how well that's worked out.
- AMA was very excited about the language of 336, even noting that "it would be very good for them" if passed. I can only infer that this refers to the "...and within the programming" language. Multiple discussions of language of 336 and operations within a safety program. The fact that they linked the two (336 language and within a safety program) has me convinced more than ever that the intent was to drive compulsory membership. Hanson's column in MA, as well as EVPs in the same issue, confirms that was the intent.
- It was clear there was an opportunity to drive RemoteID ... I think there was even a comment about how FAA wanted the stakeholders to come up with a solution. I saw no indication in the minutes that AMA was willing to give any ground. We see how well that strategy worked.
- Multiple discussions of adverse trends. When discussing action plans to change these trajectories, the word "hope" appears frequently.
- There appears to be very little intellectual dissent on the board. Vote nearly always unanimous or at most one or two dissents. That tells me there's a lot of group think happening, and that seldom works out well.
- There was some discussion of need to separate MRs and FPV from traditional flying, and that was rejected.
So now I wonder if my question was too narrow. Perhaps it should be "Is it past time for AMA to do what it's talked about but never acted upon, and that is get a serious safety program in place - one that has elements recognizable to other aviation stakeholders?"
- AMA is not respected by the FAA. Multiple discussions of slow rolling decisions, not taking action actions, etc. It appears to me that AMA leaders put way too much faith in what they were hearing from FAA, and lost sight of what FAA was actually doing (or not doing).
- FAA has been telegraphing for years that significant change is coming. Mention of possible hard altitude limits goes back almost ten years. AMA appears to have clung to what they heard in meetings vs. the signal being sent by FAA (see above).
- AMA mentions several times becoming more serious about their safety program, including but not limited to more consistent enforcement of their safety code, regional safety directors responsible for consistent enforcement of rules at clubs, even a more rigorous flight training program for large and / or fast aircraft. These are nearly always mentioned in close association w/ FAA meetings. By all indications the AMA took little if any meaningful action in response to these - never getting serious about their safety program.
- Exceptional deference to Rich Hanson with respect to FAA dealings. And we see how well that's worked out.
- AMA was very excited about the language of 336, even noting that "it would be very good for them" if passed. I can only infer that this refers to the "...and within the programming" language. Multiple discussions of language of 336 and operations within a safety program. The fact that they linked the two (336 language and within a safety program) has me convinced more than ever that the intent was to drive compulsory membership. Hanson's column in MA, as well as EVPs in the same issue, confirms that was the intent.
- It was clear there was an opportunity to drive RemoteID ... I think there was even a comment about how FAA wanted the stakeholders to come up with a solution. I saw no indication in the minutes that AMA was willing to give any ground. We see how well that strategy worked.
- Multiple discussions of adverse trends. When discussing action plans to change these trajectories, the word "hope" appears frequently.
- There appears to be very little intellectual dissent on the board. Vote nearly always unanimous or at most one or two dissents. That tells me there's a lot of group think happening, and that seldom works out well.
- There was some discussion of need to separate MRs and FPV from traditional flying, and that was rejected.
So now I wonder if my question was too narrow. Perhaps it should be "Is it past time for AMA to do what it's talked about but never acted upon, and that is get a serious safety program in place - one that has elements recognizable to other aviation stakeholders?"
Last edited by franklin_m; 05-27-2020 at 12:59 PM.
05-27-2020, 01:20 PM
#125
Senior Member
Umm... There is no Remote ID standard now, so how exactly is any manufacturer supposed to do that?? And Futaba transmitters do not have "TV screens" in them. They are simple displays that only display programming information, timers, and telemetry info (like voltage, altitude, temperature). Nothing about standard RC unit transmitter screens make it "easier" to fly illegally. And nearly every manufacturer of RC model radios has some sort of screen. So it beats me what you ware trying to say.
The ASTM remote ID standard was released in February. Does Futaba have anything in the works on remote ID?