Old Man
Active Member
After reading and participating in a couple of threads applicable to organizations representing our endeavors I'd like to put some thoughts out in the public domain about where I think things are going. I don't expect to make everyone happy with this but at the same time I believe the "disorganization" our craft and trade is experiencing is not doing us any favors.
I would like to make clear I am one of the original members of the ACUAS and part of the staffing body, and some bias is to be expected. I am speaking for me, not the ACUAS as an official, but letting people be fully cognizant of my association with the ACUAS. I do most certainly support the ACUAS
I am not "pitching' the benefits of one group over another because I recognize that each has an important part to play. I recognize the activity taking place within the FAA at the moment has been in play a VERY long time, 8 years now, and there are some extremely powerful players that have been established from the beginning of the first ARC committee from 2007 in that group. There are some very real 800+ pound gorillas in that room. At this time I don't have any personal influence among them so I understand the best way to exert any influence in that playing field is not to insert someone at the last possible second, after the bulk of the regulatory formation has been completed, but to use leverage from a large voting body to help shape the responses that will be filed in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) process. The people and groups that were well established and maintained a position inside the regulatory discussions from the start of ARC II have already shaped the dialog. Some of those have provided us considerable exposure and should continue to have our support through the current phase of the process. We are disadvantaged because the rules that we will expected to live by have been developed in secret, with only bit and pieces of what's to come leaked out of the process.
From my perspective educating the amateur and professional sUAS operators, which includes multirotors, in the rules that have been long established is a means for them to understand where conflicts between sUAS and full scale occur. If we understand how "the other guy" has been forced to function we will have better tools to determine how we will have to function in order to better fit what has gone before. Doing this might be a good approach to generating a reasonable and logical thought process among people flying what we do to coherently develop input that will be used in NPRM responses. There is also a need for a specialized national/international trade organization that understands and supports people that do what we do at multiple levels. I think the ACUAS is a superb fit for these functions because we do what you do, and have been a part of what you do for a long time, and truly understand. I do not believe anyone should be enemies and that each organization will serve an important function and purpose. The ACUAS also has a broad based perspective of the issues we are all facing. I do not believe that territorial "in fighting" or "marking territory" is a good way to accomplish anything.
I do not believe that any current organization with the funding necessary to influence the political process is looking out completely for our interests. Large organizations require money to function and the larger they become the more money they require. Eventually money becomes the primary focus of any such group. A great example of that is "charitable" organizations where one is lucky to see $0.05 from every contribution dollar actually make it to the intended purpose of the contribution. Businesses are in business to make money and protecting their ability to continue making money is their responsibility to their share holders, and their employees. There will be situations where interests between groups are in conflict but how those conflicts are managed and remedied will be what establishes the development path of flight rules that smoothly integrate us into the NAS. Some of the groups in play have specific interests they are trying to protect and cultivate that also manage to extend to some (not all by any means) of our interests, and being a member of any or all of those groups is beneficial to our long term survival. One has to understand that no group is everything to everybody. The commercial vendors that are working to assure survival of the multirotor market are primarily working to assure their survival as a profitable business and only indirectly supporting what we want/need. If regulations sharply curtail what, where and how we can do something those regulations also negatively impact manufacturer and vendor sales/profitability, unless the government and military picks up the lost civilian sales volume. I do not see that happening. We just came full circle with the money side of things.
From my personal perspective the ACUAS came into the game late, and with great intentions and with a daunting task, but at this point of time we don't have the money to buy access, or the time needed to do all that's required to be done. Without asking for a membership dollar we've thus far done well in connecting with people that are in attendance in the federal discussions and process. Unfortunately I do not believe there is much influence to be had that will impact the current stage of the game. I believe the ACUAS will be able to play a much greater role as a member service and support organization after the primary regulatory proposal is released in the NPRM. This and afterwards is where the ACUAS can have important and lasting influence on how the future of our MR endeavors unfold. From my perspective new membership in any representative organization at this late stage in the regulation formation process will do more to depict the number of people involved in our activities than anything else, and how the memberships influence the direction each organization takes from the point of NPRM release forward is what will determine how our professions and hobbies are managed. The total volume of those memberships is what is for the moment most important. The association of Multirotor Forums with the Small UAV Coalition makes absolute sense because it has been well established in the current ARC meetings. I do not see MR Forums association with SUASC as being any kind of conflict with the ACUAS. In fact, in the long run it may well provide a mutually beneficial connection between both groups.
In short, I think the Small UAV Coalition is a good group to be a member of. Also supporting things like sUAS News is a good thing to do because they have been able to bring things out that would not have come out otherwise. There are good things to be had with some of the people in the AUVSI but we have to be selective in this group. The AMA needs every bit of support they can get to ensure the survival of the RC aero hobby, a hobby that if lost will bring the end of all access to airspace by modelers at every level, including what we do. Those with the ability should continue support of the AOPA and EAA because the knowledge we have of multirotors needs to be shared with those groups in order for them to gain better comprehension of who we are and what we do, and that expanded comprehension reduces fear. I also believe the ACUAS is a great organization because we understand who we are and what we do, and have been developing the the lines of communication that will be used to reach other organizations as processes and developments unfold and new groups come into being. In short, it's not one group or another being the "best", but all groups representing al the various factions coming together to achieve workable results for as many as possible to continue what they have been doing and for all to grow with expanding opportunities.
Thanks for reading,
Pat
I would like to make clear I am one of the original members of the ACUAS and part of the staffing body, and some bias is to be expected. I am speaking for me, not the ACUAS as an official, but letting people be fully cognizant of my association with the ACUAS. I do most certainly support the ACUAS
I am not "pitching' the benefits of one group over another because I recognize that each has an important part to play. I recognize the activity taking place within the FAA at the moment has been in play a VERY long time, 8 years now, and there are some extremely powerful players that have been established from the beginning of the first ARC committee from 2007 in that group. There are some very real 800+ pound gorillas in that room. At this time I don't have any personal influence among them so I understand the best way to exert any influence in that playing field is not to insert someone at the last possible second, after the bulk of the regulatory formation has been completed, but to use leverage from a large voting body to help shape the responses that will be filed in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) process. The people and groups that were well established and maintained a position inside the regulatory discussions from the start of ARC II have already shaped the dialog. Some of those have provided us considerable exposure and should continue to have our support through the current phase of the process. We are disadvantaged because the rules that we will expected to live by have been developed in secret, with only bit and pieces of what's to come leaked out of the process.From my perspective educating the amateur and professional sUAS operators, which includes multirotors, in the rules that have been long established is a means for them to understand where conflicts between sUAS and full scale occur. If we understand how "the other guy" has been forced to function we will have better tools to determine how we will have to function in order to better fit what has gone before. Doing this might be a good approach to generating a reasonable and logical thought process among people flying what we do to coherently develop input that will be used in NPRM responses. There is also a need for a specialized national/international trade organization that understands and supports people that do what we do at multiple levels. I think the ACUAS is a superb fit for these functions because we do what you do, and have been a part of what you do for a long time, and truly understand. I do not believe anyone should be enemies and that each organization will serve an important function and purpose. The ACUAS also has a broad based perspective of the issues we are all facing. I do not believe that territorial "in fighting" or "marking territory" is a good way to accomplish anything.
I do not believe that any current organization with the funding necessary to influence the political process is looking out completely for our interests. Large organizations require money to function and the larger they become the more money they require. Eventually money becomes the primary focus of any such group. A great example of that is "charitable" organizations where one is lucky to see $0.05 from every contribution dollar actually make it to the intended purpose of the contribution. Businesses are in business to make money and protecting their ability to continue making money is their responsibility to their share holders, and their employees. There will be situations where interests between groups are in conflict but how those conflicts are managed and remedied will be what establishes the development path of flight rules that smoothly integrate us into the NAS. Some of the groups in play have specific interests they are trying to protect and cultivate that also manage to extend to some (not all by any means) of our interests, and being a member of any or all of those groups is beneficial to our long term survival. One has to understand that no group is everything to everybody. The commercial vendors that are working to assure survival of the multirotor market are primarily working to assure their survival as a profitable business and only indirectly supporting what we want/need. If regulations sharply curtail what, where and how we can do something those regulations also negatively impact manufacturer and vendor sales/profitability, unless the government and military picks up the lost civilian sales volume. I do not see that happening. We just came full circle with the money side of things.
From my personal perspective the ACUAS came into the game late, and with great intentions and with a daunting task, but at this point of time we don't have the money to buy access, or the time needed to do all that's required to be done. Without asking for a membership dollar we've thus far done well in connecting with people that are in attendance in the federal discussions and process. Unfortunately I do not believe there is much influence to be had that will impact the current stage of the game. I believe the ACUAS will be able to play a much greater role as a member service and support organization after the primary regulatory proposal is released in the NPRM. This and afterwards is where the ACUAS can have important and lasting influence on how the future of our MR endeavors unfold. From my perspective new membership in any representative organization at this late stage in the regulation formation process will do more to depict the number of people involved in our activities than anything else, and how the memberships influence the direction each organization takes from the point of NPRM release forward is what will determine how our professions and hobbies are managed. The total volume of those memberships is what is for the moment most important. The association of Multirotor Forums with the Small UAV Coalition makes absolute sense because it has been well established in the current ARC meetings. I do not see MR Forums association with SUASC as being any kind of conflict with the ACUAS. In fact, in the long run it may well provide a mutually beneficial connection between both groups.
In short, I think the Small UAV Coalition is a good group to be a member of. Also supporting things like sUAS News is a good thing to do because they have been able to bring things out that would not have come out otherwise. There are good things to be had with some of the people in the AUVSI but we have to be selective in this group. The AMA needs every bit of support they can get to ensure the survival of the RC aero hobby, a hobby that if lost will bring the end of all access to airspace by modelers at every level, including what we do. Those with the ability should continue support of the AOPA and EAA because the knowledge we have of multirotors needs to be shared with those groups in order for them to gain better comprehension of who we are and what we do, and that expanded comprehension reduces fear. I also believe the ACUAS is a great organization because we understand who we are and what we do, and have been developing the the lines of communication that will be used to reach other organizations as processes and developments unfold and new groups come into being. In short, it's not one group or another being the "best", but all groups representing al the various factions coming together to achieve workable results for as many as possible to continue what they have been doing and for all to grow with expanding opportunities.
Thanks for reading,
Pat
Last edited by a moderator:
