swede5

My Feedback: (1)

1/3 of the 140,000 members????

Maybe, maybe not .......................the website mentions 57,000 letters sent. I know that when I sent mine there were two letters to my Senators and one letter to my Representative. So, are we keeping track of members who sent letters or the number of letters actually sent at 3 per member.

Which means that approximately 19,000 "members" have pushed the button.

Inquiring minds want to know ........................

prop wash

Has this post been closed??

prop wash

KidEpoxy

Its a good thing s223 Amendment86 got voted onto the senate bill by all these senators... all these senators that will be getting letters sent way WAY after the Feb17 senate vote to even have Amendment86 to be on the bill at all

Why did we just COMPLETELY SKIP writing letters to influence the Feb17 senate vote to have the amendment at all?
Wow
Good thing it passed that hurdle all by itself, huh

iron eagel

I look at it this way; they have gotten some positive feedback about the way the vote went...

Now to see what happens in the house.

Nitro-Tom

More pics of that UAV can bee seen here:


http://www.troybuiltmodels.com/items...RAYRPVUAS.html

Nitro-Tom

Good point, plus I called the AMA to let them know, we need to know the numbers for each state......since each state has reps (In the house or senate) that are going to vote on this, one way or the other.....

If we have a state where they are not getting many letters we need to advertise more there, since if a senator or congressmen in one state only gets 16 letters, let's say, we are not high on his radar for that session, and we may need his vote!

That is they way this system works, sorry to say....look at the way FLA has played a critical part in the presidential elections.......

we do need more info on the numbers.......if we can get it......

corch

My Feedback: (1)

Call the "Local" office. Tell the staffer that answers the phone that last week (or whenever) you sent the Congress-critter an email about needless government intrusion into your hobby. Then remind them that one of their campaign talking points was:"reducing government regulation" or "eliminating wasteful government oversight" etc. Then say, "you know, if Mr/Mrs Congress-critter gets on board with this, this will make an excellent talking point that when they are up for re-election in a couple of years (or in the case of representatives, in 19 months) that they can proudly say they were able to stand up to needless government oversight on a hobby." Then ask, "now why wouldn't he/she?"

Chances are, you will get transferred to the DC office, and speak to someone of worth. I spoke to a "Deputy Chief of Staff" which in congressional speak means a low to mid 30 year old staffer who has been around the block. They generally focus on one or two policy issues (economy, foreign policy, etc) and advise the Congress-critter and offer advice on how to vote. Don't blow it

Don't forget to follow up, early and often.

akcub

o

GerKonig

This statement is so wrong it is not even funny...

Gerry

jester_s1

YellowAircraft, your comedic timing is impeccable! And you are right. People who want to participate in a serious conversation in written form should at least go to school long enough to learn how to spell and use proper grammar. Neither I nor any other thinking person is inclined to listen to a grown man who writes in text talk, won't use punctuation or includes words like basicly, anough, or govermint in their posts!

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

But thn ther is thos of us that ain't got's all that there edacation U all Got's ... But's ya knows wats ... We's flys them there modle aereo-planes and most import thing ... We's Votes. Ands thats whats them there Governmint peoples under stands mostly
bout us... "WE's VOTES."

Justs a POOR Ill Edgjecated RC'er.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Sorry, but that is not what I am saying, despite your selective quoting.

AC91-57 is an advisory, not a regulation. I have always agreed with the AMA interpretation of the 400 foot advisory. The 400 foot rule was silly from the start and was the of the FAA creating an arbitrary limit without proper study and consideration.

I mean what I said, not what you THINK I said. I have no issue with a basic safety advisory.

[/quote]

KidEpoxy

Aint no need to done got book learnt,
y'all know just what I'm sayin no nevermind of how I grammate.



The problem aint that I spell 'disproves' wrong when I post some FAA text and say it disproves someones fallacy,
the problem is folks will chose to ignore a cited FAA text just because I had a missssspelling in my post.

iron eagel

Hey guys we are loosing the focus here...
Perhaps some of us are using the dreaded IE that does not include spell check as part of its system. I am not going to be critical of some typos in someones post if I can interpret what they meant.
Remember this part above the box in which you type your reply: "Please resist the urge to curse, flame, degrade, insult or embarrass someone in your post".

The Issue here is that the FAA (which is run and administered by bureaucrats not elected officials) should be the target of our wrath.

The Toolman

Well jester ol' buddy, if you don't like the way people spell, you oughta go to some forum where everything is perfect.

I'll bet $100 I could find plenty wrong with you or the way you live if I met you.

If peoples spelling an punc is that bad, your not a very good reader then.

KidEpoxy

What AMA did was not an interpretation,
it was a kicking to the curb the flatly obvious 400ft Everywhere Always that was in AC91-57.

When a text states 'We advise Blue'
it is not an 'interpretation' of that text to say We will do Red.... that is just ignoring the blue advice


"The 400 foot rule was silly from the start"
and yet for decades AMA didnt use lobbyists to change it to protect the hobby,
rather they left it in place getting more and more entrenched.

Now, we hear folks say they dont mind what was in AC91-57
... well, that is endorsing 400ft Everywhere Always and not what some private gang decided to do instead of that



If you dont like 400ft Everywhere Always,
then dont say 91-57 is ok.

If the only part of AC91-57 that you like
is the 'voluntary advice' nature of allowing folks to just absolutely ignore any and all fed influence over MA,
then just say that-
You just want the FAA to have absolutely ZERO control over UAS (what MA actually are),
since Size/Wt/Speed/LOS/Commerce are all just Curb Kickable Advice

The Toolman

If they think running into a big plane is bad, wait until somebodys prop chews one of these up while yer flying

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...02-28-19-13-24

GerKonig

And your point is? You do not vote for the FAA, and this mess started under the Republican administration, and now it continues under the Democrat administration, and it might finish under a different administration. Who is in the white house makes no difference, non at all... Not to the FAA and not to many other entities.

So, who you vote (or if you do) makes no difference here. Of course, this is something one learns while getting an education:-)

Gerry

iron eagel

In 1958 the FAA was charged with regulation full scale aircraft and commerce within the NAS, at that time model aircraft were a non-issue, not even worthy of mention.
Now that we have commercial interest looking to exploit small unmanned aircraft for profit all of a sudden our activities have been brought to the forefront. Now most of the commercial UAV's go so far beyond what we fly (even if you include the 100 lb beasts flying on waivers) it not even fair that we should be included in the same definition. And that is what this is all about the new definitions that the FAA came up with that define UAV's.
Our activities have existed side by side with full scale aviation for years without a problem, now all of a sudden there is the perception that we may be a problem, what's up with that...is the question we should all pose to those who feel government regulation of recreational models is needed.

iron eagel

There is one other aspect to all of this that I am curious about...
And while it may have been mentioned in other forums and dismissed I think it is something that a someone who is well versed in law should look at.
And that is what is actually the limits of FAA airspace, now I know that many and the FAA itself feels that anything above ground level is within their purview, why is it that if for building a building the only time you need government approval for the permit process is when the building height is over 1000 ft and is considered to be entering the NAS.

mkranitz

My Feedback: (60)

If the regulations promulgated by the FAA are unreasonable to the extent that they interfere with business (e.g. interstate commerce), then the courts can overturn them or remand them back to the FAA for redrafting so as not to unreasonably affect the business of radio control. If we can't fly 'em, we won't buy 'em, so there is a natural nexus between the FAA's imposition on us and the negative effect on the businesses that serve our hobby.

I don't think we should sit back now, however, and I have written to each of my representatives and senator about this.

MK

iron eagel

Your right we should not sit back, we all need to unite and explore our options to fight the "onerous and unnecessary restrictions" the FAA wishes to impose on us.

KidEpoxy

its not a question of them being bigger than us,
if that were the case we would need just 1 Magic Number from the FAA:
X pounds and smaller are Models, Over X pounds and you are UAS

But we simply cannot do that,
because the commercial/public use UAS are getting down to below 1 pound these days.
Parkflyers in PPP are far 'bigger & more dangerous' than some of the lil UAS indoor spydrones

Our models didnt get too big,
the UAS have gotten way to small and are down in our domain now.

Keep in mind that the sUAS ARC was specifically designed to deal with craft 55lb and under,
it limited the classes of UAS to a 55lb top tier...
yet AMA is now using 125lb for top tier toy airplanes

iron eagel

I did not know that it had been bumped up to 125 lbs.

From what I have read about safety concerns in the advisory both speed and weight were mentioned as factors in their decision for the proposals.

Here again I think that the one underlying fact is that for years models were not considered to be part of the FAA's realm, even though they posted advisory's regarding it. Now all of a sudden they feel that the can regulate it just by making a rule, to me they are just thumbing there nose at what we should be looking at using as legal precedent.

Granted you'd probably need an exceptionally good legal team to pull it off, but still it is an option the AMA should be considering...

edit to add:
I am sorry you are right the UAV's have shrunken down, as far as 6 ounces at this point, and I have seen some that even go below that proposed as being possible.