AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

View Poll Results: A poll
Yes, our self-policing efforts (i.e. AMA Safety Codes) aren''t working.
4.81%
Yes, the world has changed considerably since 9/11.
15.96%
I''m not sure.
5.58%
No, the FAA has no business regulating "hobby" airplanes.
34.62%
No, we are fully capable of policing ourselves.
12.69%
No, the perceived threat to society doesn't exist!
13.85%
I hate polls like this!
12.50%
Voters: 520. You may not vote on this poll

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

Reply
Old 01-28-2012, 07:28 AM
  #351
fireflyer
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 6
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default 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.
fireflyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 07:51 AM
  #352
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default 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.
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 09:10 AM
  #353
cfircav8r
 
cfircav8r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hampton, IA
Posts: 1,237
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default 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.
cfircav8r is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 09:33 AM
  #354
804
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan, IN
Posts: 1,167
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
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.[:@]
804 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 01:08 PM
  #355
KidEpoxy
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
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?


...


Quote:
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


Quote:
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
KidEpoxy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 01:09 PM
  #356
kiwi4
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: middletown, OH
Posts: 66
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default 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
kiwi4 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 01:44 PM
  #357
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
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 [:@]




Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 01:45 PM
  #358
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: 804


Quote:
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.

Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 01:51 PM
  #359
804
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan, IN
Posts: 1,167
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy



...


Quote:
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


Quote:
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.
804 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 01:58 PM
  #360
804
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan, IN
Posts: 1,167
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


Quote:
ORIGINAL: 804


Quote:
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.
804 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 02:52 PM
  #361
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
ORIGINAL: 804


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


Quote:
ORIGINAL: 804


Quote:
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.
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 03:29 PM
  #362
804
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan, IN
Posts: 1,167
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

Quote:
ORIGINAL: 804


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


Quote:
ORIGINAL: 804


Quote:
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?
804 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 03:31 PM
  #363
cfircav8r
 
cfircav8r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hampton, IA
Posts: 1,237
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default 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."
cfircav8r is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 04:18 PM
  #364
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
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.
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 04:45 PM
  #365
804
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan, IN
Posts: 1,167
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


Quote:
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.
804 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 05:25 PM
  #366
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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".
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 06:39 PM
  #367
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Posts: 3,049
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 08:38 PM
  #368
Steve108
 
Steve108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Derry, NH
Posts: 311
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
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. [link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIo33_xbqeo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIo33_xbqeo[/link]

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."
Steve108 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 09:27 PM
  #369
beepee
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,315
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default 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
beepee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 09:31 PM
  #370
804
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan, IN
Posts: 1,167
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Steve108

Quote:
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. [link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIo33_xbqeo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIo33_xbqeo[/link]

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.
804 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 09:34 PM
  #371
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,914
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
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.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 10:12 PM
  #372
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Posts: 3,049
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: 804


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Steve108

Quote:
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. [link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIo33_xbqeo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIo33_xbqeo[/link]

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 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 10:34 PM
  #373
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
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 the FAA would expect the AMA to come up with a set of rules that is supposed to
make the hobby safer without first 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.




Quote:
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.
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 11:34 PM
  #374
NorfolkSouthern
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,568
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default 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
NorfolkSouthern is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2012, 06:42 AM
  #375
HoundDog
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,471
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


[quote]ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


Quote:
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
HoundDog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:41 PM.