B4UFly Getting a Make Over

[PatR]

The articles provides appearances the B4UFly app might finally be gaining some useful functionality. If what the article states comes about the recreational flyer will be provided some pretty useful tools, as would 107 operators, without being bound by a manufacturers flight restriction software.

FAA hands off drone app

 

[Phaedrus]

Big +++ that they are dropping Airmap and going with Kittyhawk.

 

[Steve Carr]

What??? A sensible solution??? YES!!!!!

 

[Phaedrus]

What??? A sensible solution??? YES!!!!!

Very un-FAA like!!

 

[AH-1G]

They seem to be getting a bit more serious, since all the flack they've been getting from the public.
Wait till you see what's coming down the pike!

 

[Phaedrus]

Oh, I cannot wait to see all the endless threads that will propagate across the Interwebs once the FAA publishes the required recreational sUAS test!! That's going to be highly entertaining.

 

[Ty Pilot]

We might need a dedicated thread topic to handle them all ? I can see it now.

 

[Phaedrus]

We might need a dedicated thread topic to handle them all ? I can see it now.

An entire sub-forum for sure.

 

[PatR]

I’m waiting for the inevitable regulation that mandates recreational uses not only adhere to the safety rules of a community based organization, but also be members of such an organization. A second part of that rule would mandate that recreational users fly only at locations already approved by a community based organization.

Sound crazy and far fetched? It’s not really when we review how the AMA has pandered to the FAA and recognize the AMA cannot survive much longer without a heavy influx of new memberships to fund AMA paychecks. We might also consider such a regulation would leave most of the airspace open and available to more sophisticated commercial drone interests. The ones that already bought all the congress people and the FAA.

 

[Phaedrus]

I’m waiting for the inevitable regulation that mandates recreational uses not only adhere to the safety rules of a community based organization, but also be members of such an organization.

I know a few people whose heads will explode at that!! One guy in particular on RC Groups has made a career of hating on the AMA and working to hold all RC modelers to the high standards of Naval Aviation that he is accustomed to operating under.

A second part of that rule would mandate that recreational users fly only at locations already approved by a community based organization.

That will be a tougher one. As far as the AMA goes they do not approve, sanction, authorize or in any other manner recognize a chartered club's flying site. While they have suggested field layouts, I think they will be very reluctant to go so far as approving flying sites.

I do know they are working with the FAA regarding the 400 foot Class G airspace altitude limit to allow deviations from that at established flying sites.

Sound crazy and far fetched? It’s not really when we review how the AMA has pandered to the FAA and recognize the AMA cannot survive much longer without a heavy influx of new memberships to fund AMA paychecks.

They did that and they also abandoned their traditional member base while trying to bear hug the exploding multi-rotor crowd. They failed on that point and alienated much of their traditional membership base.

We might also consider such a regulation would leave most of the airspace open and available to more sophisticated commercial drone interests. The ones that already bought all the congress people and the FAA.

I agree. AMA has failed in large part to the fact that they are fighting way above their weight class.

 

[PatR]

Give it a little time Phaedrus, I think much will come to pass. I loved the way they (AMA) did things after the last membership push. As soon as they managed to scare a lot of multirotor operators into joining they raised the dues structure. Having been an AMA member for about 30 years I'm not a hater but I certainly recognize they've changed in many ways that's not benefitiing those they are supposed to be looking out for. The primary concern seems to be focused on Muncie.

 

[PatR]

We might need a dedicated thread topic to handle them all ? I can see it now.

Perhaps we already so need one titled "FAA News and Discussions". To me it's a little odd having to post new stuff about FAA going's on in the Off Topic thread instead of the News thread, especially as there's almost never new "News" coming from Yuneec.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Pat you think the FAA will or may mandate that recreational users not only join the AMA but also; only fly at AMA sites?

Give it a little time Phaedrus, I think much will come to pass. I loved the way they (AMA) did things after the last membership push. As soon as they managed to scare a lot of multirotor operators into joining they raised the dues structure. Having been an AMA member for about 30 years I'm not a hater but I certainly recognize they've changed in many ways that's not benefitiing those they are supposed to be looking out for. The primary concern seems to be focused on Muncie.

Like you Pat I was along time AMA member and while I am no hater, I have always felt it was poorly run and focused on itself (Muncie). During the time when so many advancements to model aviation where happening, they were slow to promote those aspects. Now they are just trying to do anything to stay alive and relevant. Even with that, I recently secured a membership to a local flying club that has six other members who are almost never there so, I am once again an AMA member and have a sight that I can fly my UAV's at.

 

[Phaedrus]

Give it a little time Phaedrus, I think much will come to pass. I loved the way they (AMA) did things after the last membership push. As soon as they managed to scare a lot of multirotor operators into joining they raised the dues structure.

They raised the dues because they spent a lot of money on their government liaison efforts. I sat in on a couple of the EC meetings when that was going down. They dug a hole for themselves and when they realized that people were not flocking to them as much as they hoped, they had to cover the costs of their efforts. They were operating off of "build it and they will come." But they never did. Most MR folks still shun the AMA. AMA clubs didn't help by shunning the MR guys either. My home club has a big quad racing group. They hold large races and have a permanent course set up.

Having been an AMA member for about 30 years I'm not a hater but I certainly recognize they've changed in many ways that's not benefitiing those they are supposed to be looking out for. The primary concern seems to be focused on Muncie.

They are in the mindset that they need to keep it going so they can keep it going. They are absolutely struggling to stay relevant. They pissed off their traditional member base and failed to attract the MR groups like they hoped to. I agree that their only savior now may be mandatory CBO membership.

 

[Phaedrus]

Pat you think the FAA will or may mandate that recreational users not only join the AMA but also; only fly at AMA sites?

Having say in on a few of the AMA/FAA meetings I think it is safe to say that the FAA will likely never mandate CBO membership in a particular CBO. The new law tightens up the definition of a CBO and it appears that AMA may be the default CBO for now.

I also feel based on what I've heard that what they may do is permit a bit more latitude for those flying at established sites, but I doubt they will mandate that people only fly at those sites.

Like you Pat I was along time AMA member and while I am no hater, I have always felt it was poorly run and focused on itself (Muncie). During the time when so many advancements to model aviation where happening, they were slow to promote those aspects. Now they are just trying to do anything to stay alive and relevant. Even with that, I recently secured a membership to a local flying club that has six other members who are almost never there so, I am once again an AMA member and have a sight that I can fly my UAV's at.

Yep. AMA has missed the boat. That's not a new thing either. I remember when they did not want to cover those new fangled heeliokopturs either. AMA has always suffered from a FOG burden. Too many old guys who just refused to recognize the world was changing around them. I still think they have some relevance, but they have a lot of work ahead of them. They are hanging their hats on their efforts with the FAA, but I have not been all that impressed with their success.

They keep saying that when the dust settles the hobby will go on much as it always has. Yep, except for registration, testing, significant operations restrictions and an uncertain future for soaring, pattern, IMAC (giant scale aerobatics), and jets to name a few.

 

[PatR]

Ty,

In re-defining community based organization, all the way down to their corporate tax status, they effectively made the AMA, an organization that by corporate charter cannot lobby the government, the only organization in America that fits the definition. They could not name a business and show preferential treatment but they did so in all but name only. Why?

They won’t cause the AMA to do anything but the way things are now defined they can enact an interlocking group of regulations that will force participants to walk a tightrope in order to comply. If one end of the rope ends at the AMA the AMA can publish “suggestions” that would effectively become part of enforceable regulations. If the process developed to a point that in order to play you had to join snd pay, what’s to stop it? You’ll have to excuse me but I don’t limit thinking to the short term, and neither do corporate business and government. This was done outside of the NPRM process so it might be subject to litigation.

Me thinks a bunch of money and favors changed hands in this.

 

[Phaedrus]

Ty,

In re-defining community based organization, all the way down to their corporate tax status, they effectively made the AMA, an organization that by corporate charter cannot lobby the government, the only organization in America that fits the definition. They could not name a business and show preferential treatment but they did so in all but name only. Why?

I agree, it seems custom made and sets a high bar for any other organization that might come along. I think this is a huge mistake. But it does get the FAA off the hook.

AMA has lost their way and I don't think they really know it yet.

 

[PatR]

I have the opposite view. I believe they know exactly what they’re doing, and how to get what they want. Mention public safety in any given plan and the general public will fall on a sword to be thus provided.

 

[Phaedrus]

I have the opposite view. I believe they know exactly what they’re doing, and how to get what they want. Mention public safety in any given plan and the general public will fall on a sword to be thus provided.

You may be right. I feel that they are a boat with 12 oars pulling in different directions.

 

[DoomMeister]

Perhaps we already so need one titled "FAA News and Discussions". To me it's a little odd having to post new stuff about FAA going's on in the Off Topic thread instead of the News thread, especially as there's almost never new "News" coming from Yuneec.

As far as I know , News is just that, and is not restricted to “Yuneec”. If it was, there would be only be 25 posts since the inception of the forum!?