Are you a member of the AMA? If so Why?

[sprzout]

I joined the AMA mostly for the insurance, I figured it would be easier to find a place to fly on the local farms if I was insured. And, if your plane flies away and into a car windshield causing a wreck, you will need all the insurance you can get. A nearby club had a fly-in and it sounded like a good way to meet fellow fliers. The club happened to be made up of experienced pilots flying big, beautiful gassers and they weren't interested in new members, especially one flying FT foamies. It was a group of people forming a private club and they had every right to be exclusive. I wouldn't have fit in anyway, being a nooby and all. So far I have 2 FBs and maybe if we can get more people interested we can have our own club, informal, I hope.

Jim

Jim, funny you should feel that way...I felt the same about my club at my first meeting. Most of the guys flew expensive 3D planes, or really nice balsa warbirds, from what I could tell.

And then I showed up at the 3rd meeting since joining, and presented my Sea Duck for Model of the Month.

These guys were completely fascinated that something so DIFFERENT could be built out of "cardboard" because it was WR foam board (I finally had to show them scrap for them to realize it was foam board LOL), and shortly after, what I thought was a bunch of "old fogies" were building Fogies and Krakens and Versa Wings and Simple Cubs! Sure, they liked the expensive planes, but they were surprised that there was another good medium to make planes out of, one that they hadn't thought of.

 

[slipshift]

I never got close to joining the club. The president said "We are not taking new members at this time". Oh well.

Jim

 

[skymaster]

I think that the AMA is just an insurance agency nothing more , and for that they will never put their hands in fire for us. so do not expect anything from them. when our right of flight is on the line.

 

[PsyBorg]

I flew with a spotter once here when a friend was over visiting. He was at the picnic table with my while I was flying. Less then 3 seconds after take off he was like.. where did it go... Spotters and race quads... joke of the century.. Specially when there is more then two in the air running gates. Not to mention by the time they realize something is wrong its all over.

For me a spotter would be better suited to watch the area outside of where I fly for the wandering brain dead who pay more attention to their cell phones then real life.

 

[rockyboy]

For me a spotter would be better suited to watch the area outside of where I fly for the wandering brain dead who pay more attention to their cell phones then real life.

You bring up a really good point here. The 'rules' say you need an FPV spotter, but nowhere outside of the Part 107 documentation is there a good discussion of what a spotter is supposed to do. I don't even know if the AMA has good documentation on it.

Ss you rightly point out here, a spotters main function isn't to watch your equipment to recover your downed quad - it's to watch the overall flight area for any changing conditions that create risks and tell the pilot (who probably can't see the danger) about issue to prevent people from getting hurt.

 

[jaredstrees]

I only joined the AMA for flite fest as well. The nearest club to me is almost 40 minutes away. I have an 8 year old and a 4 year old. I feel lucky to get in a couple batteries on the way home from work, and I fly at my church with the pastor's permission. There are no major roads and few houses. If I manage to break a window, I'll pay for it. If there are people using the fields there I just don't fly. But there is no way my wife would put up with me spending all of Saturday or Sunday at an AMA field. So when my registrations ends this month I won't renew either.

Maybe when I have the time to devote to the hobby and attend more fly ins or move closer to a AMA club I'll renew, but at this point it isn't worth it.

And I saw the FAA announcement as well. Had to go dig up my FAA #, since I never deregistered from them at least I won't have to go through that again!

 

[foamtest]

And I saw the FAA announcement as well. Had to go dig up my FAA #, since I never deregistered from them at least I won't have to go through that again!

I'll have to do the same too, luckily for me I wrote it on some of my powerpods so it won't take long to find. Don't you love the government?

 

[Geeto67]

You bring up a really good point here. The 'rules' say you need an FPV spotter, but nowhere outside of the Part 107 documentation is there a good discussion of what a spotter is supposed to do. I don't even know if the AMA has good documentation on it.

I dunno, this seems pretty clear:
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/2010s/media/201409.pdf

Primarily, visual observers are used to assist in the prevention of a mid-air collision during the course of a UAS operation

Part 107 is pretty clear that the spotter is there to see things the FPV operator is not able to see. I think common sense probably expands this beyond "mid air" to flying collision with objects like people walking into the flight path (although I kinda feel that falls under the definition of mid-air since the drone is flying even if the person isn't).

 

[rockyboy]

The 'mid-air' collision the FAA is referring to is with full scale - with the point being the spotter is supposed to be watching for things in the flying area the pilot can't see, not just watching the FPV pilot's equipment which is what most spotters I've seen in person are doing.

I think it would be a lot more effective for both the FAA and AMA to do more/better with their communications of what a spotter is supposed to be doing. Cause while some of us RC nuts might be interested in reading FAA's research documents, I don't think most people are going to see it there

 

[Geeto67]

The 'mid-air' collision the FAA is referring to is with full scale - with the point being the spotter is supposed to be watching for things in the flying area the pilot can't see, not just watching the FPV pilot's equipment which is what most spotters I've seen in person are doing.

We can assume that since it is the most common definition, that it means collision with another aircraft - but unless it is explicitly stated it isn't fact. The ambiguity of definition is something the courts will determine as it is necessary, but It's a pretty safe bet the FAA's focus is going to be on full size for now. Wait until we have a few court cases of people being hit in the head with FPV quads where there wasn't a spotter and we can see where the jurisprudence will take us.

you and I agree that the point of the "spotter is supposed to be watching for things in the flying area the pilot can't see"

I think it would be a lot more effective for both the FAA and AMA to do more/better with their communications of what a spotter is supposed to be doing. Cause while some of us RC nuts might be interested in reading FAA's research documents, I don't think most people are going to see it there

agreed, and they will probably get there. Up until today, this was a dead issue but now it is alive again so it will take time to roll out official communication.

 

[sprzout]

You bring up a really good point here. The 'rules' say you need an FPV spotter, but nowhere outside of the Part 107 documentation is there a good discussion of what a spotter is supposed to do. I don't even know if the AMA has good documentation on it.

Ss you rightly point out here, a spotters main function isn't to watch your equipment to recover your downed quad - it's to watch the overall flight area for any changing conditions that create risks and tell the pilot (who probably can't see the danger) about issue to prevent people from getting hurt.

Actually, they DO have rules for FPV spotters, as part of Doc 550:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/550.pdf

Here's the sad thing - NOBODY I know follows this stuff to a T. As Taz said, you really can't; if you get out of control during a race, it's more of a "blink and it's gone" situation around the gates. Heck, even I don't follow it to a T, but that's because nobody I know knows how to FLY a drone, short of the people who are racing. We all just use spotters to say, "Your drone went down about 30 feet out, right by that tree there," or "It rolled to the left."

Spotters ARE good for that; I know when I was flying my Inductrix Pro outside, having a spotter to keep an eye on where it went down, "in the general area", made it a lot easier to hunt for. But realistically, having them take over? Not a reality for something moving that fast. You just can't, any more than a pro would be expected to take over and save a plane that's 10' off the ground and approaching at an 80 degree angle, ready to become a lawn dart. Guidelines are good for safety; I don't discount that you are trying to be as safe as possible. But there's the reality - assuming you are going to be able to save it by handing over the transmitter, blind, to a spotter that may or may not be able to save it because the quad is flying at "no mistakes high", is not realistic.

The spotter is there, really, as far as I'm concerned, to tell you, "You're about 5 ft off the ground on your landing," or, "Hey, there's some people over by the end of the ballpark coming in to the field, keep away from them," or "You just went down by the light pole, straight out about 50' from you." At least, that's how I have my spotters help me; when I've got a 30+ degree angle on my FPV camera and I'm trying to set my drone down nice and level, flat, I have to assume that they're guiding me properly when all I can see is sky and no reference points, necessarily...

 

[sprzout]

I dunno, this seems pretty clear:
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/2010s/media/201409.pdf



Part 107 is pretty clear that the spotter is there to see things the FPV operator is not able to see. I think common sense probably expands this beyond "mid air" to flying collision with objects like people walking into the flight path (although I kinda feel that falls under the definition of mid-air since the drone is flying even if the person isn't).

I will wholeheartedly agree that the job of the spotter is to help you avoid another object in the air, whether it be another quadcopter, R/C plane, full size aircraft, or even a bird (I remember someone posting up that they had a hawk/eagle trying to attack their quad, and I know I had a couple ravens chasing me off of their corner of the ballpark where I fly sometimes). As I posted earlier, the AMA DOES have docs about it (look up document 550 on their site), but what the AMA and the FAA suggest are two very different things. The AMA's approach to it seems to primarily be for those flying fixed wing aircraft, and not quadcopters, in thinking that a spotter will be able to take over should the pilot experience video loss or need help, and for a quad, that's just not feasible. A fixed wing flier, maybe it's possible, but for how fast the quads move, and how quick a reaction time is needed, it's taking 3-4 sec. to hand over a radio to another pilot and expect them to pull out and save it, in which time it's most likely going down.

 

[rockyboy]

Both of the documented approaches to a spotters duties are described in ways that are about 3 years behind the technology curve. Maybe back in the multi-wii days it would have made sense, but it doesn't work with any of the racing or free style tech. I'm also finding that the documented descriptions you guys are bringing up are different than the Part 107 class videos which emphasize the spotters need to keep eyes on all of the airspace and surrounding area for hazards encroaching on the flight area.

Hopefully congress won't decide to try legislating the tech next to bring it into line with their flawed policy expectations....

 

[foamtest]

That would be absolutely terrible, the hobby would go so far backwards that no one would even be interested in quads anymore. Although this
fortunately doesn't seem to likely because would bring up a ton of lawsuits, I guess the good news would be that ground vehicles would see a surge in popularity.

 

[rfd]

whether you like AMA or not, in this highly politicized world they are our DC lobbyists who have our backs. on the lowest level, it's that simple and though i joined AMA in the 60's for other reasons, having an accredited organization defend our citizen r/c aircraft rights is even more important these dayze. all aircraft modelers should join and support AMA, because AMA supports us - it's that simple.

 

[FoamyDM]

signed up for the 3 month membership. I can't fly at the local club without the membership and I expect to sign up to the local club, which requires it. They seem to be a lot of different type of folk. The president was off-putting, but some of the other regulars seemed welcoming. I'll get out there this weekend and find out.

 

[jack10525]

Thank you guys for all the replies. I did not know this was a hot topic. I still may join the ama just for the insurance aspect. I probably will go check out this field again to see if I just went on a bad day. It is only like 4 miles from my house but you have to go over some gravel roads. I hate getting my car dirty. There are 2 other clubs but they are at least 15 miles away. From ready through the replies it seems a lot of clubs have cliques and don't seem to like new members or electric foamies. I would like to find an electric club.

 

[rfd]

really, sit back and think about this hobby model aircraft sport, and put it in political legislative context here in the new millennium. make NO mistake about it - you may be required to join because yer flight club requires it, or you may feel there's value in its insurance benefits, but it's really all about political/legislative strength in organization numbers that will *hopefully* insure your "right to fly". this was never ever necessary in the last century, welcome to the information age ....

 

[bitogre]

Jack, where in South Florida do you live?

I live in Broward County and fly at Markham Park. Most of the people there are nice but they do tend to mainly only talk to people they know. People there do fly everything from cheap foamies to expensive jets. The nice thing about Markham Park is that it is a well equipped RC Airfield with paved runway and only cost $25 a year to use the field but you do have to be an AMA member. I think the AMA membership is worth while to be able to fly at that airfield. Feel free to send me a private message if you want to meet me at Markham Park to go flying some time.

The other reason I am an AMA member is so I can attend events. Practically all RC Flying events (including FliteFest) require you to be a AMA member to fly at the event. This is so they can use AMA insurance for the event. I attend enough events to make this worth while.

 

[sprzout]

Jack, where in South Florida do you live?

I live in Broward County and fly at Markham Park. Most of the people there are nice but they do tend to mainly only talk to people they know. People there do fly everything from cheap foamies to expensive jets. The nice thing about Markham Park is that it is a well equipped RC Airfield with paved runway and only cost $25 a year to use the field but you do have to be an AMA member. I think the AMA membership is worth while to be able to fly at that airfield. Feel free to send me a private message if you want to meet me at Markham Park to go flying some time.

The other reason I am an AMA member is so I can attend events. Practically all RC Flying events (including FliteFest) require you to be a AMA member to fly at the event. This is so they can use AMA insurance for the event. I attend enough events to make this worth while.

That's true about the events. Our field has done sailplane tows, camping events, and in October, we had a "Heliween" event where people were able to come in and fly by paying $15 and donating an unwrapped toy to Toys For Tots. The $15 went towards a BBQ that they had during the day for all of the pilots, but let me tell you, there were pilots and spectators alike that showed up with toys and cash that they gave for the event over and above what they needed.

Those two events were for people not just from our club, but from all over. For the Heli event, we had people coming in from Roswell, NM, Davis, CA, a couple people from Reno, NV...It was a chance for helicopter pilots to show off and have fun into the night, and it was a great event. But, AMA membership was required for any pilot there because of the insurance coverage, should something go wrong. Is it worth it? I think so...At the very least, it's allowed me to fly at my dad's field, and as a visitor in Northern California with the Diablo Valley Flyers, and once FFW figures out where it'll be for 2018, I'll be able to fly there too (hopefully before my membership expires; it's set to expire at the end of April)