RunRyder RC
WATCH
 1 page 315 views POST REPLY
HomeMain Discussion › Protect Section 336 and Model Aviation
07-23-2018 08:17 AM  26 days agoPost 1
rcscaleguy

rrNovice

CA, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

http://www.oneclickpolitics.com/promo/169

As provided by AMA. Also please make sure you look into Remote ID for model aircraft.

I am writing to you as one of more than 200,000 members of the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA), the largest association of model aircraft enthusiasts with more than eight decades of experience managing the hobbyist community.

Today, I strongly urge you to preserve Section 336 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act, also known as the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, in the upcoming reauthorization bill for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Special Rule for Model Aircraft allows hobbyists like myself to fly within the safety programming of a community-based organization (CBO), essentially providing an alternative for some hobbyists that is equitable – if not more rigid – than what the FAA offers to those who do not operate within a CBO.

Flying model aircraft is much more than a hobby; it is an effective tool for teaching science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) to many kids and teenagers. For many of these young people, the hobby leads to successful careers in aviation and engineering – jobs that are increasingly vital to our future. In fact, many famous aviators started flying model airplanes at a young age, including astronaut Neil Armstrong and aerospace pioneer Burt Rutan.

I am deeply concerned that eliminating the Special Rule for Model Aircraft will not only impact me, but also more than 50,000 AMA youth members for whom the hobby is the catalyst for an interest in STEM-related careers.

Furthermore, model aviation enthusiasts have been the cradle of innovation for both the manned and unmanned communities for decades. The AMA community has helped to develop and advance aircraft platforms since the 1930s. Even today, as technology continues to improve, modelers are dreaming up new ways to apply and use aircraft technology every day. Eliminating the Special Rule for Model Aircraft would be a devastating blow to innovation.

Lastly, allowing CBOs like AMA to manage our own communities frees up scarce FAA resources, which in turn helps keep our skies safe for everyone. Eliminating the Special Rule for Model Aircraft will exacerbate the demand on the agency’s resources, which may have negative implications for the safety of our skies.

As a long-time modeler, I urge you to preserve the Special Rule for Model Aircraft in the upcoming FAA reauthorization bill and protect this long-standing hobby.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-23-2018 02:40 PM  26 days agoPost 2
RM3

rrElite Veteran

Killeen, Texas - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Dont get upset... but although this letter is a valiant attempt at preserving what little rights we have to the air above us and the radio frequencies we use, Im going to play devils advocate here to show you why they dont give a rats butt about us and the AMA...
rcscaleguy
The Special Rule for Model Aircraft allows hobbyists like myself to fly within the safety programming of a community-based organization (CBO), essentially providing an alternative for some hobbyists that is equitable – if not more rigid –
There is nothing preventing us from flying outside such areas, and the cost of enforcement is ridiculous... nearly all violations by RC aircraft have all happened outside designated flying sites.
rcscaleguy
Flying model aircraft is much more than a hobby; it is an effective tool for teaching science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) to many kids and teenagers.
With the decreasing use of physical sciences in class rooms and colleges (other than Votech colleges) this is a bit of a stretch... although it can be a tool to teach... it is not the only tool, there are other far more effective in terms of not only cost but availability. The current use of RC aircraft to teach kids currently in school is very rarely used. It is far more likely that a Drone is employed by the school for photography use than for teaching science.
rcscaleguy
Furthermore, model aviation enthusiasts have been the cradle of innovation for both the manned and unmanned communities for decades. The AMA community has helped to develop and advance aircraft platforms since the 1930s. Even today, as technology continues to improve, modelers are dreaming up new ways to apply and use aircraft technology every day. Eliminating the Special Rule for Model Aircraft would be a devastating blow to innovation
This is disingenuous. This may have been the case before 1960, but innovation in the last 50 years has been brought forward by research often tied to military programs such as DARPA and hundreds of military contractors tied directly to the Pentagon. The Carbon fiber we all rave about was not a hobbyists idea, nor the LIPOs nor gyros... as one particular president so eloquently said
"You didnt build that..."
rcscaleguy
Lastly, allowing CBOs like AMA to manage our own communities frees up scarce FAA resources, which in turn helps keep our skies safe for everyone.
again... the issue of use of RC aircraft is not in CBOs... the problem is enforcing rules upon those that operate outside of it whom are very likely to interfere with commercial activities, violate private and restricted areas and interfere with emergency services and public works.

The benefits of saving 336 has little value to the powers that be, especially those that wish to profit from regulation.

This is a new world we live in... We have been on a downward slide since drones became the hot topic of the evening news... all thanks to the rogue pilot for the mess we are in.

showing a preference will only get you into trouble, 90% of everything is crap...

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-25-2018 03:07 AM  24 days agoPost 3
rcscaleguy

rrNovice

CA, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

336 aside, if you employ Remote ID translation a transponder to each of your certified aircraft you'll get the reason I posted this in the first place. People who helped us get into the 2.4 ghz space are waiting on the sideline and may be helping push this not into a rule but a law. Just like the DMV, and a smog check comply or you're breaking a law. Just like driver without license this puts pressure on LEA to do the enforcement. For those that ask about the drone space, not a big deal they'll just make it part of the hardware stack and pass the cost on to the consumer. Those that fly RC get ready to shell out for all your aircraft. This to me would be a great burden and to many other RC people that enjoy the hobby and own many aircraft.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-26-2018 02:12 PM  23 days agoPost 4
RM3

rrElite Veteran

Killeen, Texas - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Section 343 (previously Section 336) has effectively been amended to allow further FAA regulation... which favors commercial drone development, adds timelines to add or remove provisions and further erodes hobbyists ability to fly where and when they choose.

The notion of adding transponders to our models is asking alot. Are we to add transponders to every kids flying toy as well simply because it has the potential to break the law? Model rockets often reach hights of 200 ft, multi stage C engine rockets can reach 800ft, Large rockets using E and F engine single stage break 400 AGL on a routine basis. kids kites can get up high too. Whats to limit a park flyer from adding autonomous systems and pushing a 15e Fokker triplane into the 500ft AGL mark?

Adding yet another government agency for the sole purpose of providing oversight directly to the hobby is ridiculous and expensive... We already know that all government agencies are ripe with loopholes and wasteful spending which further burdens the taxpayer and asking even Law Enforcement Officers to know how to enforce this is asking too much... a good percentage of LEOs dont even know the basic laws of the areas they work in, a youtube search can validate that claim each and every day of the year.

Adding transponders sounds like a good idea on the surface, but the practicality of it is not and burdens both the hobbyist and enforcement agencies to the point that it will be ignored and unenforceable.

I honestly think the solution is to ban all autonomous Non LOS, beyond LOS systems and FPV systems that allow more than 400 ft range from over the counter sales, regulate those differently from all other RC... these systems specifically are the single reason FAA is all up in our business.

showing a preference will only get you into trouble, 90% of everything is crap...

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-29-2018 11:17 PM  19 days agoPost 5
Heli_Splatter

rrElite Veteran

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Just insert my usual "you don't know what the hell you are talking about" comment. It will save my blood pressure, and you don't read common sense anyway.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-05-2018 08:40 AM  13 days agoPost 6
TMoore

rrMaster

Cookeville, TN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

As usual Bill just likes to be the monkey in the wrench and that is IMHO because he's gone to the dark side of the biz.

So, let's talk about the idea of adding transponders to RC Models and why that's not a good idea. All the Drone Weenies are using this as a panacea for all that ails the Drone Weenie Universe but there are several problems with that idea. Current RC links are using some form of DSSS or FHSS and in some cases variants but for the most part these are two main systems in use. Here is a document from the FCC that explains the low powered unlicensed band plan for 2.4ghz and other frequencies. https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/...63/oet63rev.pdf

Here is a Wiki on the various ISM frequencies and their usage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISM_band

In order for a 2.4ghz transponder to be able to co-exist with an RC receiver it would have to be of a low enough power output that it won't affect the receive capability of the on-board RC receiver which would render it pretty much invisible to anyone or anything that is trying to track it's output. Modern RC systems are not designed to co-exist with other sources of 2.4ghz transmitters that are right on top of them in close proximity. If you ever tried to get the 2.4ghz downlink on a GoPro to co-exist with your 2.4ghz radio you will understand the issues. The farther you fly your model away from your transmitter the more likely that you will lose control of your model due to simple RFI (radio frequency interference). Modern RC systems were never designed to work in that environment. When I was testing the Aritronics 2.4 Ghz FHSS systems we used to get a lot of requests to use GoPro wireless systems with the radios and it just wasn't practical nor was it reliable. There were times that you could lose lots of information because the RC RX was working with a heightened noise floor and eventually you would lose the RC link and down goes the model or it flies off.

Fullsize aircraft are supposed to use ADS-B Transponders which can use several hundred watts of RF power and this is supposed to be implemented by 2020. Military aircraft can use much higher power levels than civilian aircraft. There are claims of ADS-B systems that are supposed to operate on 2.4 ghz but these systems need to be integrated into the flight control systems as in something like the DJI Matrice. Suffice it say that none of the current RC systems that we use are transponder compatible. None of the current transponder ideas have been tested in the real world and most are at this point only safe to use in an experimental closed course condition. In short there is nothing even remotely ready for prime time that works and is in use currently. The idea that you can just pass laws, implement 2.4ghz transponders and ATC's all over the country will magically wake up the next morning and know where all the model traffic is isn't reality.

The reality part is the problem that I see here, between the government and the industry they just aren't working within the reality and there is so much misinformation running about that it's all just BS.

Delayed Response Operator Not Engaged
AMA SECTION 336 = Good
Drones = EVIL

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-06-2018 01:31 AM  12 days agoPost 7
Heli_Splatter

rrElite Veteran

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Why don't you just remove me from your paranoid schizophrenia warped concept of reality?

I am not the enemy. I am getting a 107 commercial drone license because it was recommended to me by Chad Beaudreu of the AMA in order to fly FPV. I wish to fly drones within the laws and regulations of this great American country.

If I ever want to do commercial work, that is my prerogative and nobody's business.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-06-2018 02:17 AM  12 days agoPost 8
TMoore

rrMaster

Cookeville, TN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Heli_Splatter
Why don't you just remove me from your paranoid schizophrenia warped concept of reality?

I am not the enemy. I am getting a 107 commercial drone license because it was recommended to me by Chad Beaudreu of the AMA in order to fly FPV. I wish to fly drones within the laws and regulations of this great American country.

If I ever want to do commercial work, that is my prerogative and nobody's business.
Dude, no one is stopping you from getting your 107 and if you want to be part of my Ignore list just say the word. If you're getting a 107 just to fly FPV Chad gave you bad advice because you can fly FPV with a spotter now with just your AMA. There is probably another reason that he advised you to get a Part 107. https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/a...nue-flying-fpv/

If you're getting your Part 107 for commercial work, more power to you. I don't care one way or the other. You can still be a modeler with your Part 107. BTW, in an earlier post you said:
Heli_Splatter
A couple of things; Thanks, I am glad that you are not worried about me. I would be a serious pilot no matter what. My private license instructor would have it no other way. I certainly don't think an AMA membership is indicative of anything. Also, you would have to think most drone users have several to many multi-rotors. The test and fees limit most of the 107 interested pilots. I am not in the drone business, I am teaching a 107 course.
Are you teaching a course, taking a course, trying to pass the Part 107 quiz, which is it? I think there's a section in Part 107 about pilot stress too.

Delayed Response Operator Not Engaged
AMA SECTION 336 = Good
Drones = EVIL

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-06-2018 01:51 PM  12 days agoPost 9
JuanRodriguez

rrProfessor

The Villages, Florida

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

One fact remains perfectly clear......

DRONE WEENIES ARE THE PROBLEM and the reason for the barrage of needless regulations.....

If the shoe fits, wear it !

Been there, done that and old enough to know better.....

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-06-2018 02:38 PM  12 days agoPost 10
RM3

rrElite Veteran

Killeen, Texas - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

TMoore
Are you teaching a course, taking a course, trying to pass the Part 107 quiz, which is it? I think there's a section in Part 107 about pilot stress too.
I'm beginning to think hes FOS... cant seem to keep is story straight.

showing a preference will only get you into trouble, 90% of everything is crap...

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-10-2018 01:03 AM  8 days agoPost 11
Heli_Splatter

rrElite Veteran

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Truth
Everything that I have said is truthful. I don't appreciate the FOS comment. You need to have my dad wash your mouth out with lye soap. It would teach you some manners.

I think that is better to never deal with the two of you again.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-10-2018 06:40 AM  8 days agoPost 12
TMoore

rrMaster

Cookeville, TN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Heli_Splatter
Truth
Everything that I have said is truthful. I don't appreciate the FOS comment. You need to have my dad wash your mouth out with lye soap. It would teach you some manners.

I think that is better to never deal with you two again.
Whether you like it or not part or all of what you said is ambiguous at best. Can you be more specific?

Thanks, I am glad that you are not worried about me. I would be a serious pilot no matter what. My private license instructor would have it no other way. I certainly don't think an AMA membership is indicative of anything. Also, you would have to think most drone users have several to many multi-rotors. The test and fees limit most of the 107 interested pilots. I am not in the drone business, I am teaching a 107 course.
A couple of things;

Delayed Response Operator Not Engaged
AMA SECTION 336 = Good
Drones = EVIL

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 1 page 315 views POST REPLY
HomeMain Discussion › Protect Section 336 and Model Aviation
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 4  Topic Subscribe

Saturday, August 18 - 5:08 pm - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online