Regulation passed the House
02-11-2012, 07:33 AM
#301
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
Flyfast
You need to first realize the reason AMA has the buddyboxFPV, then consider how that fits the new bill.
AMA uses the buddybox so we can say the pilot in charge,
(the one that is considered to be flying the model)
is the master, and the guy with goggles on is not the guy flying the plane (or flying under the control of the master).
That way, we can say the MASTER is flying BY line of sight- the model is flown with eyes on it and open See&Avoid.
Sure, a lot of folks consider that 'mommy-hold-my-hand-FPV' to be less fun than flying by your self like a big boy.
Now you have to wonder about the federal law requiring flights 'within LOS',
and if that means a guy alone cannot do a Look&Launch 100% In-Goggle model flight.
If the new law says 100%Goggle Verboten, then it really dont matter if the FAA or AMA come up with their own ideas to how allow it... Das Es VERBOTEN!
so,
perhaps you need to get the answer I havent gotten from AMA TimJ,
cause if congress says 'within LOS' means Not-In-Goggles, then that is pretty bad hobby-killing news for you & the 15000 guys at dyid
It would be nice if AMA relaxed the rules a bit for fpv. I am not exactly sure what would be best, but flying fpv on a buddy box really takes a lot of the fun out of it.
AMA uses the buddybox so we can say the pilot in charge,
(the one that is considered to be flying the model)
is the master, and the guy with goggles on is not the guy flying the plane (or flying under the control of the master).
That way, we can say the MASTER is flying BY line of sight- the model is flown with eyes on it and open See&Avoid.
Sure, a lot of folks consider that 'mommy-hold-my-hand-FPV' to be less fun than flying by your self like a big boy.
Now you have to wonder about the federal law requiring flights 'within LOS',
and if that means a guy alone cannot do a Look&Launch 100% In-Goggle model flight.
If the new law says 100%Goggle Verboten, then it really dont matter if the FAA or AMA come up with their own ideas to how allow it... Das Es VERBOTEN!
so,
perhaps you need to get the answer I havent gotten from AMA TimJ,
y/n Is it legal under this bill to Look&Launch a 100% Gogglesdown FPV flight all alone on ones back40 pasture?
02-11-2012, 07:34 AM
#302
RE: Regulation passed the House
Tell the kid that if the FPV pilot has a spotter telling him when he has an aircraft nearby then, he meets the definition of model aircraft.
02-11-2012, 07:40 AM
#303
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
So instead of 'mommy-hold-my-hand-FPV'
we can do 'mommy-stand-next-to-me-FPV' ???[:@]
heres a question you probably havent seen a few times now
SPORT,
y/n Is it legal under this bill to Look&Launch a 100% Gogglesdown FPV flight all alone on ones back40 pasture?
well?? is it?
please answer with a single letter Y or N,
(that means Dont rewrite the question to use an answer you want to give but dont fit the question as written)
we can do 'mommy-stand-next-to-me-FPV' ???[:@]
heres a question you probably havent seen a few times now
SPORT,
y/n Is it legal under this bill to Look&Launch a 100% Gogglesdown FPV flight all alone on ones back40 pasture?
well?? is it?
please answer with a single letter Y or N,
(that means Dont rewrite the question to use an answer you want to give but dont fit the question as written)
02-11-2012, 07:41 AM
#304
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan,
IN
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Wha'chu talkin bout 8?
Other thread???? what other thread??
Are you just cross thread griping?
You talk about some comment you made in another thread,
but fail to quote in your comment, link it, or even mention what thread you are talking about.
I'm not gonna go searching for your mystery thread
as to put the CONTEXT back into my posts.
You wanna gripe about whats going on in other threads, make some sense out it.
however
I will point out that the quote of me you did post
pretty much shows me saying I dont think it would be great at all to have that as federal regulation.
Good job, you found a quote of me saying I dont like federal regulation of the hobby.
You may also note that the quote of me was talking about how we can get hurt even by just making a DEFINITION,
which is what I have been saying a few pages here-
We got a permissive definition from congress,
dont mess with it cause as I said in that quote, defining us can hurt us (the hobby)
Great work 804,
you proved that I dont want the government intruding in the hobby
and that I know we can get hurt by overzealous definition of us
I had no idea you were a closet KidEpoxy cheerleader,
but thanks for the support
Wha'chu talkin bout 8?
Other thread???? what other thread??
Are you just cross thread griping?
You talk about some comment you made in another thread,
but fail to quote in your comment, link it, or even mention what thread you are talking about.
I'm not gonna go searching for your mystery thread
as to put the CONTEXT back into my posts.
You wanna gripe about whats going on in other threads, make some sense out it.
however
I will point out that the quote of me you did post
pretty much shows me saying I dont think it would be great at all to have that as federal regulation.
Good job, you found a quote of me saying I dont like federal regulation of the hobby.
You may also note that the quote of me was talking about how we can get hurt even by just making a DEFINITION,
which is what I have been saying a few pages here-
We got a permissive definition from congress,
dont mess with it cause as I said in that quote, defining us can hurt us (the hobby)
Great work 804,
you proved that I dont want the government intruding in the hobby
and that I know we can get hurt by overzealous definition of us
I had no idea you were a closet KidEpoxy cheerleader,
but thanks for the support
So, FAA regulation was good when Kid Epoxy was trying to make AMA look bad,
and now FAA regulation is bad when Kid Epoxy is trying to make AMA look bad.
Got it now, thanks.
02-11-2012, 07:43 AM
#305
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
804
uh, are you baiting me to call you a liar?
cite source, where did I say FAA regulation was good?
So, FAA regulation was good when Kid Epoxy was trying to make AMA look bad,
cite source, where did I say FAA regulation was good?
02-11-2012, 08:53 AM
#306
My Feedback: (22)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
Tell the kid that if the FPV pilot has a spotter telling him when he has an aircraft nearby then, he meets the definition of model aircraft.
Tell the kid that if the FPV pilot has a spotter telling him when he has an aircraft nearby then, he meets the definition of model aircraft.
Great answer. I agree 100%. Look and launch falls under the heading of "big sky" theory, not "see and avoid" as required by the legislation. My question is this:must the spoter be AMA and is it OK for the spoter to be drinking ?
02-11-2012, 09:08 AM
#307
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Flyfast
You need to first realize the reason AMA has the buddyboxFPV, then consider how that fits the new bill.
AMA uses the buddybox so we can say the pilot in charge,
(the one that is considered to be flying the model)
is the master, and the guy with goggles on is not the guy flying the plane (or flying under the control of the master).
That way, we can say the MASTER is flying BY line of sight- the model is flown with eyes on it and open See&Avoid.
Sure, a lot of folks consider that 'mommy-hold-my-hand-FPV' to be less fun than flying by your self like a big boy.
Now you have to wonder about the federal law requiring flights 'within LOS',
and if that means a guy alone cannot do a Look&Launch 100% In-Goggle model flight.
If the new law says 100%Goggle Verboten, then it really dont matter if the FAA or AMA come up with their own ideas to how allow it... Das Es VERBOTEN!
so,
perhaps you need to get the answer I havent gotten from AMA TimJ,
cause if congress says 'within LOS' means Not-In-Goggles, then that is pretty bad hobby-killing news for you & the 15000 guys at dyid
Flyfast
It would be nice if AMA relaxed the rules a bit for fpv. I am not exactly sure what would be best, but flying fpv on a buddy box really takes a lot of the fun out of it.
AMA uses the buddybox so we can say the pilot in charge,
(the one that is considered to be flying the model)
is the master, and the guy with goggles on is not the guy flying the plane (or flying under the control of the master).
That way, we can say the MASTER is flying BY line of sight- the model is flown with eyes on it and open See&Avoid.
Sure, a lot of folks consider that 'mommy-hold-my-hand-FPV' to be less fun than flying by your self like a big boy.
Now you have to wonder about the federal law requiring flights 'within LOS',
and if that means a guy alone cannot do a Look&Launch 100% In-Goggle model flight.
If the new law says 100%Goggle Verboten, then it really dont matter if the FAA or AMA come up with their own ideas to how allow it... Das Es VERBOTEN!
so,
perhaps you need to get the answer I havent gotten from AMA TimJ,
y/n Is it legal under this bill to Look&Launch a 100% Gogglesdown FPV flight all alone on ones back40 pasture?
I can see at least two different interpretations here. One is that the model must actually be visible to the pilot at all times, which I think would preclude solo flying with FPV goggles. The other is that the visual line of sight defines an airspace around the pilot within which the model must be flown (the language of the statute does say "within" not "in"), which might allow for solo FPV flying with goggles within the visual airspace around the pilot. The current AMA rules are more restrictive than this because they require a spotter on a buddy box, but I'd like to know whether anyone has any thoughts on this portion of the new law.
-Ed B.
02-11-2012, 09:26 AM
#308
Banned
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Newberry, FL
Posts: 5,925
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
I wonder how long it is going to take for people to realize this thread is serving little purpose other than providing a target rich environment for recreational arguing and a few are taking full advantage of it? We can only hope that no one from the FAA is monitoring it. Over 300 posts - what has been resolved?
02-11-2012, 10:39 AM
#310
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: Red Scholefield
I wonder how long it is going to take for people to realize this thread is serving little purpose other than providing a target rich environment for recreational arguing and a few are taking full advantage of it? We can only hope that no one from the FAA is monitoring it. Over 300 posts - what has been resolved?
I wonder how long it is going to take for people to realize this thread is serving little purpose other than providing a target rich environment for recreational arguing and a few are taking full advantage of it? We can only hope that no one from the FAA is monitoring it. Over 300 posts - what has been resolved?
02-11-2012, 10:59 AM
#311
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan,
IN
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
804
uh, are you baiting me to call you a liar?
cite source, where did I say FAA regulation was good?
804
So, FAA regulation was good when Kid Epoxy was trying to make AMA look bad,
cite source, where did I say FAA regulation was good?
[
b]Wouldnt that be great to hear that MA are 'completely unregulated' like that?
I dont think it would be great at all.[/b]
Just by defining what IS unregulated results in a definition of what IS NOT unregulated, and the stuff that isn not unregulated will be subject to some real uglyness
I dont think it would be great at all.[/b]
Just by defining what IS unregulated results in a definition of what IS NOT unregulated, and the stuff that isn not unregulated will be subject to some real uglyness
I said we don't need FAA regulation.
You said I was wrong.
Just enjoying watching you backpedal.
02-11-2012, 11:07 AM
#312
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan,
IN
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Flyfast
You need to first realize the reason AMA has the buddyboxFPV, then consider how that fits the new bill.
AMA uses the buddybox so we can say the pilot in charge,
(the one that is considered to be flying the model)
is the master, and the guy with goggles on is not the guy flying the plane (or flying under the control of the master).
That way, we can say the MASTER is flying BY line of sight- the model is flown with eyes on it and open See&Avoid.
Sure, a lot of folks consider that 'mommy-hold-my-hand-FPV' to be less fun than flying by your self like a big boy.
Now you have to wonder about the federal law requiring flights 'within LOS',
and if that means a guy alone cannot do a Look&Launch 100% In-Goggle model flight.
If the new law says 100%Goggle Verboten, then it really dont matter if the FAA or AMA come up with their own ideas to how allow it... Das Es VERBOTEN!
so,
perhaps you need to get the answer I havent gotten from AMA TimJ,
cause if congress says 'within LOS' means Not-In-Goggles, then that is pretty bad hobby-killing news for you & the 15000 guys at dyid
Flyfast
It would be nice if AMA relaxed the rules a bit for fpv. I am not exactly sure what would be best, but flying fpv on a buddy box really takes a lot of the fun out of it.
AMA uses the buddybox so we can say the pilot in charge,
(the one that is considered to be flying the model)
is the master, and the guy with goggles on is not the guy flying the plane (or flying under the control of the master).
That way, we can say the MASTER is flying BY line of sight- the model is flown with eyes on it and open See&Avoid.
Sure, a lot of folks consider that 'mommy-hold-my-hand-FPV' to be less fun than flying by your self like a big boy.
Now you have to wonder about the federal law requiring flights 'within LOS',
and if that means a guy alone cannot do a Look&Launch 100% In-Goggle model flight.
If the new law says 100%Goggle Verboten, then it really dont matter if the FAA or AMA come up with their own ideas to how allow it... Das Es VERBOTEN!
so,
perhaps you need to get the answer I havent gotten from AMA TimJ,
y/n Is it legal under this bill to Look&Launch a 100% Gogglesdown FPV flight all alone on ones back40 pasture?
Congress now to clarify where we stand.
That's why Hanson said what he said.
Makes this Kid Epoxy AMA gripe dujour into nonsense:
We got a permissive definition from congress,
dont mess with it cause as I said in that quote, defining us can hurt us (the hobby)
dont mess with it cause as I said in that quote, defining us can hurt us (the hobby)
02-11-2012, 11:49 AM
#313
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
b]Wouldnt that be great to hear that MA are 'completely unregulated' like that?
I dont think it would be great at all.[/b]
Just by defining what IS unregulated results in a definition of what IS NOT unregulated, and the stuff that isn not unregulated will be subject to some real uglyness
I dont think it would be great at all.[/b]
Just by defining what IS unregulated results in a definition of what IS NOT unregulated, and the stuff that isn not unregulated will be subject to some real uglyness
Right there.
I said we don't need FAA regulation.
You said I was wrong.
If the way you get 'no-regulation' involves a restrictive definition of MA, thats BAD.
If you dont understand that, then you need to reread my post you've been quoting, cause it explains exactly the Way GETTING models unregulated is just as important as HAVING models unregulated.... hence my referrence to Ultralights in that post and that example of a bad way to get them unregulated.
I never said FAA regulation was good.
Yet, you say I did... and even try to defend your fib
we are back to-
So, FAA regulation was good when Kid Epoxy was trying to make AMA look bad,
cite source, where did I say FAA regulation was good?
but I sure the heck never said FAA Regulation Was Good,
and you are having a hard time justifying your lie saying I did
02-11-2012, 11:56 AM
#314
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: 804
These are exactly the kind of questions AMA has to ask
Congress now to clarify where we stand.
That's why Hanson said what he said.
Makes this Kid Epoxy AMA gripe dujour into nonsense:
These are exactly the kind of questions AMA has to ask
Congress now to clarify where we stand.
That's why Hanson said what he said.
Makes this Kid Epoxy AMA gripe dujour into nonsense:
We got a permissive definition from congress,
dont mess with it cause as I said in that quote, defining us can hurt us (the hobby)
dont mess with it cause as I said in that quote, defining us can hurt us (the hobby)
Don't think that isn't why we are facing regulation, that we are just incidentally caught up in regulation of UASas innocent bystanders. That's the party line. Why then is there a separate section in the ARCrecommendations specifically designed to distinguish between MA that FAA doesn't want to regulate and all the rest of sUAS that FAA does see a need to regulate?
02-11-2012, 12:01 PM
#315
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
These are exactly the kind of questions AMA has to ask
Congress now to clarify where we stand.
That's why Hanson said what he said.
Makes this Kid Epoxy AMA gripe dujour into nonsense:
Congress now to clarify where we stand.
That's why Hanson said what he said.
Makes this Kid Epoxy AMA gripe dujour into nonsense:
is there a Judicial Branch of the US Government?
What does it do on your world?
Cause here,
folks use the legislative to make the law,
the executive to apply the law,
and the judicial to interpret the law.
We dont use the "804Style 2Branch Government" where the legislature both makes and judges law.
Dont ask congress if they meant to be more restrictive, $$SUE$$ anyone that claims its restrictive
(like say, the FAA trying to over reach into our freedom)
All the time we see courts interpretting that "shall not be infringed' actually means 'ok to ban',
if the courts can make a leap like that it dont matter what the original legislative text is, the court will just make up some crazyness on their whim
the solution to government intrusion
is not more government intrusion
02-11-2012, 12:30 PM
#316
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan,
IN
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
in your world,
is there a Judicial Branch of the US Government?
What does it do on your world?
Cause here,
folks use the legislative to make the law,
the executive to apply the law,
and the judicial to interpret the law.
We dont use the ''804Style 2Branch Government'' where the legislature both makes and judges law.
Dont ask congress if they meant to be more restrictive, $$SUE$$ anyone that claims its restrictive
(like say, the FAA trying to over reach into our freedom)
All the time we see courts interpretting that ''shall not be infringed' actually means 'ok to ban',
if the courts can make a leap like that it dont matter what the original legislative text is, the court will just make up some crazyness on their whim
the solution to government intrusion
is not more government intrusion
These are exactly the kind of questions AMA has to ask
Congress now to clarify where we stand.
That's why Hanson said what he said.
Makes this Kid Epoxy AMA gripe dujour into nonsense:
Congress now to clarify where we stand.
That's why Hanson said what he said.
Makes this Kid Epoxy AMA gripe dujour into nonsense:
is there a Judicial Branch of the US Government?
What does it do on your world?
Cause here,
folks use the legislative to make the law,
the executive to apply the law,
and the judicial to interpret the law.
We dont use the ''804Style 2Branch Government'' where the legislature both makes and judges law.
Dont ask congress if they meant to be more restrictive, $$SUE$$ anyone that claims its restrictive
(like say, the FAA trying to over reach into our freedom)
All the time we see courts interpretting that ''shall not be infringed' actually means 'ok to ban',
if the courts can make a leap like that it dont matter what the original legislative text is, the court will just make up some crazyness on their whim
the solution to government intrusion
is not more government intrusion
you are, as usual, just making stuff up as you go.
Judicial branch?
804 Style 2Branch Government?
Sheesh.
Your opinion is that AMA is asking for trouble by having this all clarified.
My opinion is that your opinion is hogwash.
My opinion was/is that FAA regulation was/is unnecessary.
Congress, for the most part agreed.
02-11-2012, 12:52 PM
#317
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
I have been asking folks to read the law and answer a simple question,
and folks either just cant understand the plain english in the law, or dont want to answer the question.
So lest all join hands and look at the question and the law together. (somebody start stummin a guitar)
I look out my window and see a water tower 7 miles away.
I see it, there it is, in my unaided vision. That is Line Of Sight.
So I will get a lil Autonomous Heli, and program it to go out to the tower and back.
(Dont worry, for safety I will have it go 1000yd to the right of the tower and way above it)
That is an overly simplified example because we have had SO many folks have problems answering this before.
Is the above recreational autonomous 7mile trip out to the watertower (that I can see) illegal under this new law?
well, we all still here.... have I lost any of ya?
Now lets all look at the law, the relevant part
ok... we all can read that right?
so
The law dont say "autonomous" is illegal.
The law dont say the model has to be flown BY LOS (the AMA way)
it very clearly used the word 'WITHIN' los... thats a distance not a method.
Does anyone here not see that?
Anyone read some other words that require operation BY los?
So, back to the overly simplified question-
Is the above recreational autonomous 7mile trip out to the watertower (that I can see) illegal under this new law?
Is there anyone out there that still has a problem reaching the answer "NO, its not against the law as currently written"
See how easy-peasy that was. (ok, stop the guitar strummin)
Anyone?
Anybody not seeing the answer "Not Illegal"?
and folks either just cant understand the plain english in the law, or dont want to answer the question.
So lest all join hands and look at the question and the law together. (somebody start stummin a guitar)
I look out my window and see a water tower 7 miles away.
I see it, there it is, in my unaided vision. That is Line Of Sight.
So I will get a lil Autonomous Heli, and program it to go out to the tower and back.
(Dont worry, for safety I will have it go 1000yd to the right of the tower and way above it)
That is an overly simplified example because we have had SO many folks have problems answering this before.
Is the above recreational autonomous 7mile trip out to the watertower (that I can see) illegal under this new law?
well, we all still here.... have I lost any of ya?
Now lets all look at the law, the relevant part
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft;
so
The law dont say "autonomous" is illegal.
The law dont say the model has to be flown BY LOS (the AMA way)
it very clearly used the word 'WITHIN' los... thats a distance not a method.
Does anyone here not see that?
Anyone read some other words that require operation BY los?
So, back to the overly simplified question-
Is the above recreational autonomous 7mile trip out to the watertower (that I can see) illegal under this new law?
Is there anyone out there that still has a problem reaching the answer "NO, its not against the law as currently written"
See how easy-peasy that was. (ok, stop the guitar strummin)
Anyone?
Anybody not seeing the answer "Not Illegal"?
02-11-2012, 12:56 PM
#318
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
Now that we all can sing along to the Autonomous Not Illegal tune,
whats going to happen when AMA rattles some cages and gets a 'better definition'?
Who here thinks Autonomous will still be legal after that?
whats going to happen when AMA rattles some cages and gets a 'better definition'?
Who here thinks Autonomous will still be legal after that?
02-11-2012, 02:29 PM
#319
Banned
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Newberry, FL
Posts: 5,925
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Now that we all can sing along to the Autonomous Not Illegal tune,
whats going to happen when AMA rattles some cages and gets a 'better definition'?
Who here thinks Autonomous will still be legal after that?
Now that we all can sing along to the Autonomous Not Illegal tune,
whats going to happen when AMA rattles some cages and gets a 'better definition'?
Who here thinks Autonomous will still be legal after that?
02-11-2012, 02:55 PM
#320
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Left Coast ,
CA
Posts: 4,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: Red Scholefield
I wonder how long it is going to take for people to realize this thread is serving little purpose other than providing a target rich environment for recreational arguing and a few are taking full advantage of it? We can only hope that no one from the FAA is monitoring it. Over 300 posts - what has been resolved?
I wonder how long it is going to take for people to realize this thread is serving little purpose other than providing a target rich environment for recreational arguing and a few are taking full advantage of it? We can only hope that no one from the FAA is monitoring it. Over 300 posts - what has been resolved?
We have a winner
02-11-2012, 02:59 PM
#321
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Left Coast ,
CA
Posts: 4,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
heres a question you probably havent seen a few times now
SPORT,
y/n Is it legal under this bill to Look&Launch a 100% Gogglesdown FPV flight all alone on ones back40 pasture?
well?? is it?
heres a question you probably havent seen a few times now
SPORT,
y/n Is it legal under this bill to Look&Launch a 100% Gogglesdown FPV flight all alone on ones back40 pasture?
well?? is it?
The new bill/law does not address that, nor should it, the CBO will, and under current AMA rules you are on your own baby. Now quit beating your head against the wall, it must really hurt
02-11-2012, 03:10 PM
#322
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: 804
Good Lord,
you are, as usual, just making stuff up as you go.
Judicial branch?
804 Style 2Branch Government?
Sheesh.
Your opinion is that AMA is asking for trouble by having this all clarified.
My opinion is that your opinion is hogwash.
My opinion was/is that FAA regulation was/is unnecessary.
Congress, for the most part agreed.
Good Lord,
you are, as usual, just making stuff up as you go.
Judicial branch?
804 Style 2Branch Government?
Sheesh.
Your opinion is that AMA is asking for trouble by having this all clarified.
My opinion is that your opinion is hogwash.
My opinion was/is that FAA regulation was/is unnecessary.
Congress, for the most part agreed.
You are entitled to your opinion, and Imay be the last person on the planet to say otherwise.
I can imagine what the reply will be to a request for clarification.
Congressman: "We took what your lobbiest asked for practically verbatim and enacted it as the law of the land. What did you mean for it to say?"
02-11-2012, 03:16 PM
#323
My Feedback: (4)
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: Red Scholefield
''a target rich environment for recreational arguing and a few are taking full advantage of it.''
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Now that we all can sing along to the Autonomous Not Illegal tune,
whats going to happen when AMA rattles some cages and gets a 'better definition'?
Who here thinks Autonomous will still be legal after that?
Now that we all can sing along to the Autonomous Not Illegal tune,
whats going to happen when AMA rattles some cages and gets a 'better definition'?
Who here thinks Autonomous will still be legal after that?
02-11-2012, 04:01 PM
#324
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan,
IN
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
I have been asking folks to read the law and answer a simple question,
and folks either just cant understand the plain english in the law, or dont want to answer the question.
So lest all join hands and look at the question and the law together. (somebody start stummin a guitar)
I look out my window and see a water tower 7 miles away.
I see it, there it is, in my unaided vision. That is Line Of Sight.
So I will get a lil Autonomous Heli, and program it to go out to the tower and back.
(Dont worry, for safety I will have it go 1000yd to the right of the tower and way above it)
That is an overly simplified example because we have had SO many folks have problems answering this before.
Is the above recreational autonomous 7mile trip out to the watertower (that I can see) illegal under this new law?
well, we all still here.... have I lost any of ya?
Now lets all look at the law, the relevant part
ok... we all can read that right?
so
The law dont say ''autonomous'' is illegal.
The law dont say the model has to be flown BY LOS (the AMA way)
it very clearly used the word 'WITHIN' los... thats a distance not a method.
Does anyone here not see that?
Anyone read some other words that require operation BY los?
So, back to the overly simplified question-
Is the above recreational autonomous 7mile trip out to the watertower (that I can see) illegal under this new law?
Is there anyone out there that still has a problem reaching the answer ''NO, its not against the law as currently written''
See how easy-peasy that was. (ok, stop the guitar strummin)
Anyone?
Anybody not seeing the answer ''Not Illegal''?
I have been asking folks to read the law and answer a simple question,
and folks either just cant understand the plain english in the law, or dont want to answer the question.
So lest all join hands and look at the question and the law together. (somebody start stummin a guitar)
I look out my window and see a water tower 7 miles away.
I see it, there it is, in my unaided vision. That is Line Of Sight.
So I will get a lil Autonomous Heli, and program it to go out to the tower and back.
(Dont worry, for safety I will have it go 1000yd to the right of the tower and way above it)
That is an overly simplified example because we have had SO many folks have problems answering this before.
Is the above recreational autonomous 7mile trip out to the watertower (that I can see) illegal under this new law?
well, we all still here.... have I lost any of ya?
Now lets all look at the law, the relevant part
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft;
so
The law dont say ''autonomous'' is illegal.
The law dont say the model has to be flown BY LOS (the AMA way)
it very clearly used the word 'WITHIN' los... thats a distance not a method.
Does anyone here not see that?
Anyone read some other words that require operation BY los?
So, back to the overly simplified question-
Is the above recreational autonomous 7mile trip out to the watertower (that I can see) illegal under this new law?
Is there anyone out there that still has a problem reaching the answer ''NO, its not against the law as currently written''
See how easy-peasy that was. (ok, stop the guitar strummin)
Anyone?
Anybody not seeing the answer ''Not Illegal''?
"Mr. Epoxy,
an autonomous vehicle, by definition, is not being "operated"
by a person. It is autonomous."
02-11-2012, 04:04 PM
#325
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
The new bill/law does not address that, nor should it
Look, did the bill make it illegal?
You are saying the bill didnt address it,
which makes it VERY clear that the bill DID NOT make it illegal.
Cause for the bill to make it illegal,
the bill would have to address it, right?
The bill also didnt address peanutbutter, so we can say the bill didnt make peanutbutter illegal either. There is a TON of stuff this bill didnt address and therefor didnt make illegal.
Why do you have such an aversion to just stating the bill didnt make it illegal?
Why the dance by saying it didnt make Goggle/Autonomous illegal?
Why cant you just say nowhere in the bill did it make autonomous/goggles illegal?
Just say that it is legal under the current (original) bill wording.
(well, the current, original definitions havent)