I am an RC airplane hobbyist, so I have been watching the proceedings on the regulation of drones with some interest ("Close calls spur feds' move to register drones," Oct. 20). I am a member of the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA), and there are a number of rules to which we members adhere, both for our own safety and others'. One of those rules is not to fly at a distance greater than we can see the plane with the naked eye. Our radios will reach farther, but it is very important to know where your aircraft is at all times. Another rule is to fly under 400 feet of altitude. Some of the reports from airline and full-scale pilots claim they have encountered drones at altitudes of 3,000 to 5,000 feet. When I first heard these reports, I was skeptical. My plane has about a 6-foot wingspan, and at 3,000 feet, I would not be able to see the thing. Evidently these drones have microcameras which the pilots use to keep oriented. The problem is that they have no peripheral vision.
Some of the club members have drones, but they fly them within the AMA guidelines. In fact, drones are extremely useful in spotting a plane that goes down in a cornfield adjacent to our runway.
There is already a registered organization that has allowed hobbyists to safely fly their planes for years. Those who do not follow the rules are disciplined or expelled. It is an investment in safety to belong to an AMA-sanctioned club and fly within its rules. Hopefully, the regulations the government enacts will consider these hobbyists and not "ground" them with regulations and fees that make the hobby unaffordable.
John George, Northfield
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
Contrary to editorial's assertion, there's support throughout state
I recently read the Oct. 7 editorial "Some states ramp up transportation funding," and I am disappointed with the characterization that Greater Minnesota does not support transportation investments.
I live in an area of the state that has seen tragic human losses due to unsafe roads. We are also experiencing significant economic growth in industry. Agriculture, the economic engine of Greater Minnesota, has a $75 billion impact on Minnesota's economy and is dependent on good roads to get product to market. At the same time, more people in Greater Minnesota need to commute to jobs in our regional centers.
Transportation and infrastructure investments benefit all Minnesotans, by supporting our economy and connecting communities and families. Greater Mankato Growth, the equivalent of the local Chamber of Commerce in the Mankato area, has been a vocal advocate for new transportation funding. Likewise, the Free Press of Mankato has presented a steady drumbeat in favor of new funding.
Last session, the nonpartisan and well-respected House Research department did an analysis of our major transportation funding sources and found that revenue is evenly generated throughout the metro area and Greater Minnesota.
It is true that the statewide Chamber of Commerce has opposed many types of transportation funding, but they don't speak for my community, and I know they don't speak for me. For this upcoming legislative session, we need to move a long-term, comprehensive transportation plan forward with constitutionally dedicated funding. Anything less should be considered a failure by policymakers and would be a disservice to all of Minnesota.