Register

If this is your first visit, please click the Sign Up now button to begin the process of creating your account so you can begin posting on our forums! The Sign Up process will only take up about a minute of two of your time.

View Poll Results: A poll

Voters
520. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, our self-policing efforts (i.e. AMA Safety Codes) aren''t working.

    25 4.81%
  • Yes, the world has changed considerably since 9/11.

    83 15.96%
  • I''m not sure.

    29 5.58%
  • No, the FAA has no business regulating "hobby" airplanes.

    180 34.62%
  • No, we are fully capable of policing ourselves.

    66 12.69%
  • No, the perceived threat to society doesn't exist!

    72 13.85%
  • I hate polls like this!

    65 12.50%
Page 15 of 21 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 375 of 502

  1. #351

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    6
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

    Only if we insist on sticking our airplanes into their airspace.

  2. #352
    Silent-AV8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    4,841
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

    It seems that one line of argument is that since we have never caused an injury or fatality that means the FAA should leave us alone. When we say this what the FAA hears is "you have no reason to regulate us until we kill someone, then maybe you can regulate us".

    I'm just not sure that is going to be a very effective line of reasoning.
    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  3. #353
    cfircav8r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hampton, IA
    Posts
    1,195

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

    That line of reasoning is being used in the 3D section as well. The unfortunate part is even after it happens these same individuals will claim it was an aberrant situation and continue risky behaviors. It never ceases to amaze me at the volume of injuries I see in the ER where they should know better but they thought it wouldn't happen to them, because they are better, faster, stronger, more vigilant than those other saps that got hurt the same way.
    The three most useless things to a pilot, the sky above you, the runway behind you, and the fuel on the ground.

  4. #354

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    sheridan, IN
    Posts
    1,121
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
    t seems that oneI line of argument is that since we have never caused an injury or fatality that means the FAA should leave us alone. When we say this what the FAA hears is ''you have no reason to regulate us until we kill someone, then maybe you can regulate us''.

    I'm just not sure that is going to be a very effective line of reasoning.
    Isn't that what AMA is saying?
    Here is a link to an interesting article on full-scale flying safety.

    http://www.flyingmag.com/pilots-plac...ation-problems

    The author states that the death rate per mile of aviation travel is 7-8 times that of cars.
    Real airplanes kill, on a regular basis.
    Model airplanes don't. Period.

    Seems to me that line of reasoning should be persuasive, even if it won't.
    FAA can't protect GA from itself,
    and it says it needs to protect them from us?
    What a huge, unmitigated, steaming pile of ca-ca.[:@]

  5. #355
    KidEpoxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    6,681
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

    The unfortunate part is even after it happens these same individuals will claim it was an aberrant situation and continue risky behaviors.
    wait,
    when did you start talking about the Colorado Bipe Hit,
    and folks declaring it a statistical anomaly that shouldnt count against AMA members record of satey?


    ...


    Real airplanes kill, on a regular basis.
    Model airplanes don't. Period.
    well, thats practically true,
    model airplanes dont kill people* period


    *we all just imagined that guy bleeding out from his femoral, and those two dead Hungarians dont count because they are not american


    FAA can't protect GA from itself,
    and it says it needs to protect them from us?
    What a huge, unmitigated, steaming pile of ca-ca.
    I can think of a GA Bipe that coulda used a lil protection from ama piloted models

  6. #356

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    middletown, OH
    Posts
    64
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

    The FAA should not be involved in the aero model hobbies,Thier first reaction will be to over regulate and restrict freedoms in our hobby,to mandate radio's and freq's and many other aspects of this hobby which will cost a lot of money for all of us to comply with the new reg's .Take it from someone who already deals with them on full size airplanes.Kiwi4

  7. #357
    Silent-AV8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    4,841
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: kiwi4
    ,to mandate radio's and freq's
    There is a whole other agency that gets to do that. They are called the FCC [:@]




    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  8. #358
    Silent-AV8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    4,841
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: 804


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
    t seems that oneI line of argument is that since we have never caused an injury or fatality that means the FAA should leave us alone. When we say this what the FAA hears is ''you have no reason to regulate us until we kill someone, then maybe you can regulate us''.

    I'm just not sure that is going to be a very effective line of reasoning.
    Isn't that what AMA is saying?
    AMA made the argument from the start, and it went nowhere. So raising it as an objection at this point is a waste of time and energy.

    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  9. #359

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    sheridan, IN
    Posts
    1,121
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy



    ...


    Real airplanes kill, on a regular basis.
    Model airplanes don't. Period.
    well, thats practically true,
    model airplanes dont kill people* period


    *we all just imagined that guy bleeding out from his femoral, and those two dead Hungarians dont count because they are not american


    FAA can't protect GA from itself,
    and it says it needs to protect them from us?
    What a huge, unmitigated, steaming pile of ca-ca.
    I can think of a GA Bipe that coulda used a lil protection from ama piloted models
    Figured someone would say something like this,
    just a matter of who.

    The discussion is about how model aircraft impact (or don't) full scale aviation.
    No one died in Colorado, AFAIK.

  10. #360

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    sheridan, IN
    Posts
    1,121
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


    ORIGINAL: 804


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
    t seems that oneI line of argument is that since we have never caused an injury or fatality that means the FAA should leave us alone. When we say this what the FAA hears is ''you have no reason to regulate us until we kill someone, then maybe you can regulate us''.

    I'm just not sure that is going to be a very effective line of reasoning.
    Isn't that what AMA is saying?
    AMA made the argument from the start, and it went nowhere. So raising it as an objection at this point is a waste of time and energy.

    It's my time and my energy.
    FAA regulation of MA is also a waste of time and energy, which equates to taxpayer money, yours and mine.
    You may be ok with that, I'm not.

  11. #361
    Silent-AV8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    4,841
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

    ORIGINAL: 804


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


    ORIGINAL: 804


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
    t seems that oneI line of argument is that since we have never caused an injury or fatality that means the FAA should leave us alone. When we say this what the FAA hears is ''you have no reason to regulate us until we kill someone, then maybe you can regulate us''.

    I'm just not sure that is going to be a very effective line of reasoning.
    Isn't that what AMA is saying?
    AMA made the argument from the start, and it went nowhere. So raising it as an objection at this point is a waste of time and energy.

    It's my time and my energy.
    FAA regulation of MA is also a waste of time and energy, which equates to taxpayer money, yours and mine.
    You may be ok with that, I'm not.
    That is not actually what I said. People who choose to waste their time submitting comments that will make absolutely zero difference are certainly free to do so.
    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  12. #362

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    sheridan, IN
    Posts
    1,121
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

    ORIGINAL: 804


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


    ORIGINAL: 804


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
    t seems that oneI line of argument is that since we have never caused an injury or fatality that means the FAA should leave us alone. When we say this what the FAA hears is ''you have no reason to regulate us until we kill someone, then maybe you can regulate us''.

    I'm just not sure that is going to be a very effective line of reasoning.
    Isn't that what AMA is saying?


    AMA made the argument from the start, and it went nowhere. So raising it as an objection at this point is a waste of time and energy.

    It's my time and my energy.
    FAA regulation of MA is also a waste of time and energy, which equates to taxpayer money, yours and mine.
    You may be ok with that, I'm not.
    That is not actually what I said. People who choose to waste their time submitting comments that will make absolutely zero difference are certainly free to do so.
    Look at the title of this thread, Silent.
    I gave my answer, and explained why I said what I said.
    Have you given any comments that will get the FAA off our backs?

  13. #363
    cfircav8r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hampton, IA
    Posts
    1,195

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

    I was not referring to the bipe incident only the attitude that nothing has happened yet, therefore it will not happen. The Germany incident is a better example though. "It didn't happen here therefore it didn't happen."
    The three most useless things to a pilot, the sky above you, the runway behind you, and the fuel on the ground.

  14. #364
    Silent-AV8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    4,841
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: 804

    Have you given any comments that will get the FAA off our backs?
    I have accepted the reality that the FAA IS on our backs and there is very little that is going to change that. Our best, and currently only, hope is that the AMA writes a set of operating standards that the FAA accepts that allows those of us in the most heavily affected areas to keep dong what we have been doing. But it is sheer fantasy to think that by ranting at the FAA they will suddenly say "Oh wow, we see your point. Never mind and sorry for the trouble".

    But again, for those of you who fly normal planes or helis under 100 mph, less than 55 pounds, below 400 feet, and outside Class B airspace and more than 5 NM from an airport, you likely have almost nothing to be concerned about. The rest of us are screwed unless the FAA accepts the AMA alternative standards for use.
    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  15. #365

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    sheridan, IN
    Posts
    1,121
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


    ORIGINAL: 804

    Have you given any comments that will get the FAA off our backs?
    I have accepted the reality that the FAA IS on our backs and there is very little that is going to change that. Our best, and currently only, hope is that the AMA writes a set of operating standards that the FAA accepts that allows those of us in the most heavily affected areas to keep dong what we have been doing. But it is sheer fantasy to think that by ranting at the FAA they will suddenly say ''Oh wow, we see your point. Never mind and sorry for the trouble''.

    But again, for those of you who fly normal planes or helis under 100 mph, less than 55 pounds, below 400 feet, and outside Class B airspace and more than 5 NM from an airport, you likely have almost nothing to be concerned about. The rest of us are screwed unless the FAA accepts the AMA alternative standards for use.
    Right, lets wait and see, roll over and play dead, the AMA knows best, nothing more to be done.
    You've been saying that for about a year now, and it gets us no closer to any resolution.
    Nor does it refute my opinion that FAA's new rules are a waste of their resources that could
    be better used elsewhere and that it is a waste of taxpayer money.
    Thanks, bye.

  16. #366
    Silent-AV8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    4,841
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: 804

    Right, lets wait and see, roll over and play dead, the AMA knows best, nothing more to be done.
    Well, again that is not even close to what I wrote.

    You've been saying that for about a year now, and it gets us no closer to any resolution.
    What "resolution" do you have in mind? Do you suppose that if you rant and rave and stomp your feet enough that the FAA will see the error of their ways? What is it exactly that you think can be done?

    Nor does it refute my opinion that FAA's new rules are a waste of their resources that could
    be better used elsewhere and that it is a waste of taxpayer money.
    Thanks, bye.
    I never said that I disagreed with that point either. It is a wate of time and money, and yet they appear to be moving forward none the less. That is reality. Accepting reality is not "rolling over".
    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  17. #367

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moreno Valley, CA
    Posts
    2,395
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

    ORIGINAL: ira d

    As promised here is my take on this whole deal.

    1. The FAA very much wants to regulate models if they didn't they would leave things just as theyhave beenthat being pretty much problem free.
    Not really, we are just being swept up with the main objective, commercial and public use. But since we are sUAS they need to address us. They did not set out to regulate models and tehn decide, what the heck, let's regulate commercial users too.


    2. The FAA is not having a problem defining what a recreational model is I think that is very easy to define.
    The issue as I see it is that their idea and our idea are two very different things.

    3.The so called defult path is just a tool todrive most modelers to the CBO aka AMA.
    Sorry, this is absurd. To be true it means that some how models are the main focus and the FAA wants to bolster membership in a private organization. Like I say, patently absurd propositions. This i slike saying the FAA regulates general aviation to force people to join the EAA or AOPA.

    4. The AMA has become a partner with the FAA in this endeaver the AMA gets more members and the FAA gets a watch dog group to inform them as to what modelers
    are doing.
    Again, simply absurd on the face of it.

    5. It seems that the FAA does not want us to know they are calling the shots but would rather we think that all pending rules comming are from a CBO not the FAA
    I say this because any rules put forth by a CBO will have to be approved by the FAA, IMO the FAA already knows what they want and any proposed rules will have to
    be in line with what they want.
    I do not think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that the FAA is calling the shots. I agree however that they likely know what they want. However they will not tell the AMA so they are left to guess and hope they hit the mark. Sort of like shooting an arrow in a dark room. You are not even certain what wall the target is on.

    Thats my take on things i'm out.
    Later.
    I said yesterday I was done with this subject and intend to be as it's become to long anyway, I just needed to respond to couple thing that Silent said First let me
    say I think from a common sense point of veiw and I have become pretty good at reading between the lines. Now as for the AMA shooting in the dark when they
    make there rules I dont belive that for one min It make absolutely no sense that theFAAwould expect the AMA to come up with a set of rules that is supposed to
    make the hobby safer without firsttelling the AMA what they are trying to achieve.

    Next a article in this mo AMA magazine said that the FAA feels that modelers that belong to a CBO like the AMA are safer modelers that goes along with what I
    said about the FAA wanting a watch dog group, I have found that many times you cant take everything you hear at face value because sometimes there is a
    dual or underlying meaning. I still stick to my veiw that the AMA and the FAA are more in bed with this thing than they would like us to think.
    Ira d

  18. #368
    Steve108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Derry, NH
    Posts
    308
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

    I still stick to my view that the AMA and the FAA are more in bed with this thing than they would like us to think.
    I totally agree.

    Side note, the FAA claims that the regulation is more of an airspace issue than terrorism.

    Interesting video to watch. If you get through the whole thing you will understand my next comment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIo33_xbqeo

    I can see the AMA declaring in their set of standards that "membership to an organization, such as the AMA or similar (are there any?), is required."

  19. #369

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Moscow, RUSSIA
    Posts
    1,242
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

    Steve,


    I believe that the AMA has explicitly said that membership in their or similar organization will NOT be a part of their proposed rule. Such restriction would not contribute to safety and would be seen as self-serving. Compliance will be voluntary on our part no matter where we fly.

    Bedford

  20. #370

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    sheridan, IN
    Posts
    1,121
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: Steve108

    I still stick to my view that the AMA and the FAA are more in bed with this thing than they would like us to think.
    I totally agree.

    Side note, the FAA claims that the regulation is more of an airspace issue than terrorism.

    Interesting video to watch. If you get through the whole thing you will understand my next comment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIo33_xbqeo

    I can see the AMA declaring in their set of standards that ''membership to an organization, such as the AMA or similar (are there any?), is required.''


    Somewhere in that vid, one of the FAA or AMA reps said AMA membership would not be required,
    although one of the AMA guys said something (at least twice) about getting paid for AMA's "intellectual property",
    presumably by either individuals or CBOs using the AMA standards.
    I've not seen any further explanation of that concept.

  21. #371
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,662
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

    The discussion is about how model aircraft impact (or don't) full scale aviation.
    No one died in Colorado, AFAIK.
    Not only that but the FAA did not see it as solely the model pilots fault.  They pulled the GA pilot's ticket.
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  22. #372

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moreno Valley, CA
    Posts
    2,395
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: 804


    ORIGINAL: Steve108

    I still stick to my view that the AMA and the FAA are more in bed with this thing than they would like us to think.
    I totally agree.

    Side note, the FAA claims that the regulation is more of an airspace issue than terrorism.

    Interesting video to watch. If you get through the whole thing you will understand my next comment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIo33_xbqeo

    I can see the AMA declaring in their set of standards that ''membership to an organization, such as the AMA or similar (are there any?), is required.''


    Somewhere in that vid, one of the FAA or AMA reps said AMA membership would not be required,
    although one of the AMA guys said something (at least twice) about getting paid for AMA's "intellectual property",
    presumably by either individuals or CBOs using the AMA standards.
    I've not seen any further explanation of that concept.
    I would suggest reading Rich Hansons artcle in the Jan 2012 issue of Model Aviation page 12, He wrote that the FAA feels that model operations conducted under a established
    safety program and OVERSIGHT of aCBO aka AMA or a lower risk to the public. hmmmm I wonder.
    Ira d

  23. #373
    Silent-AV8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    4,841
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: ira d
    First let me
    say I think from a common sense point of veiw and I have become pretty good at reading between the lines. Now as for the AMA shooting in the dark when they
    make there rules I dont belive that for one min It make absolutely no sense that theΒ*FAAΒ*would expect the AMA to come up with a set of rules that is supposed to
    make the hobby safer without firstΒ*telling the AMA what they are trying to achieve.
    Federal Law prohibits the FAA from revealing the contents of the proposed rule until it is published in the NPRM. If the FAA has told the AMA anything it is only in the most general terms. This idea that the FAA and the AMA are in collusion to control models is simply absurd.




    I still stick to my veiw that the AMA and the FAA are more in bed with this thing than they would like us to think.
    And I will stick to my opinion that this is uttern nonsense.
    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  24. #374

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    1,473
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

    Like Silent-AV8R said, the FAA is not interested in trying to regulate what they define as a model airplane. I am reasonably confident that the use of a community based organization will mitigate much of what modelers have to go through, compared to the real sUAS people having to jump the hoops to start their businesses. The default rout may make it inconvenient for some modelers, but I can also see the possibility of an altitude restriction being lifted as long as the club or organization can communicate their intention, just like my Tripoli prefecture did when I was flying high-powered rockets. We would get waivers that would last us for several days, and those were good for well over 30,000 feet! I guess I'm a little overly optimistic, but I also know that full-scale pilots don't want to see modelers lose their privilege. And I know for certain that the FAA doesn't want that either.

    NS

  25. #375
    HoundDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Apache Junction AZ
    Posts
    1,458
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    [quote]ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


    ORIGINAL: 804

    Have you given any comments that will get the FAA off our backs?
    I have accepted the reality that the FAA IS on our backs and there is very little that is going to change that. Our best, and currently only, hope is that the AMA writes a set of operating standards that the FAA accepts that allows those of us in the most heavily affected areas to keep dong what we have been doing. But it is sheer fantasy to think that by ranting at the FAA they will suddenly say "Oh wow, we see your point. Never mind and sorry for the trouble".

    But again, for those of you who fly normal planes or helis under 100 mph, less than 55 pounds, below 400 feet, and outside Class B airspace and more than 5 NM from an airport, you likely have almost nothing to be concerned about. The rest of us are screwed unless the FAA accepts the AMA alternative standards for use.

    [/quoteDo U suppose that our models could, would, should, be equipped with Strobes. How about TCAS ,ADS-B and Mode-S, GPWI and Transponders. I already have Altitude and ground speed read out in my transmitter along with the distance to the place the model was turned on can be recorded with many other perimeters, to a computer on the ground. Maybe flying with FPV, Will, Might, Should, be required. This would be consistent with the VFR concept of "See and BE SEEN" for full scale. Ever watch a Bird, Hawks Especially, avoid full Scale aircraft? They fold their wings and drop like a rock. Maybe our models could all be designed with folding wings and AFSAPWI < New Acronym Automatic Full Scale Aircraft Proximity Warning Indicators. Any ways it's all possible, Just not cheaply, But just like full scale if you can't afford the price of admission your government demands, Tough Luck. You don't think any one else gives a crap do you. For most people "If it doesn't affect them" too bad for the people it does. That's their worry. Who cares what government demands are placed on others, just leave me alone .... OOOPS there I go again ....... Sorry! Maybe
    Remember ... Every one of these Things we fly Comes with a Number, When the R/C Gods call that Number, it's going in a Garbage Bag, No Sniveling Allowed.
    P-47 Thunderbolt Brotherhood #24 & #43


Page 15 of 21 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:32 AM.

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.