littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

It is more important that the FAA understands the difference...but alas they feel they can take action even though regulations do not exist...and when they do, take action without regulations to back them up, it still costs us... all mucked up! That's oppression in my book.

JohnShe

If you could understand what I said, it wouldn't be a riddle. FPV is a privilege not a freedom.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Wrong...just because its not specifically enumerated in the bill of rights doesn't make it any less a freedom.

TimJ

AND IT IS THE THINKING LIKE THIS from the far LEFT that will get this whole country in trouble.

Although you are right. I don't like the idea of the government trying to railroad it's people. We do not need to sit back and take it in the pants.

TimJ

So far the FAA has lost two lawsuits. So I think they are starting to figure it out.

The nice thing is if you are prepared on the front side, you can avoid the lost time to battle and battle to recoup your funds. the government may act like they are above the law, but they are not.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

When they lose are they made to remunerate the defendants lawyers? if the answer is yes, then they are not above the law...if the answer is no, then they are above the law and that is oppression in a very simple and easy way to understand...but either way, it costs us all.

bradpaul

The fact that the sheeple of the USA actually agree with the concept that we can only do what the government "privileges" us IS THE PROBLEM!

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

I don't think everyone thinks that way bradpaul, but when it is obviously that there is a threat to public safety when there are those who misuuse their freedom, there is a time and place for the government to step in. The confusion here is that some do not believe that a branch of the government can make laws, or enforce them, when that group has been given a mandate and instruction to keep the NAS free of hazard and to protect those on the ground from objects that utilize that airspace. While I am a advocate of freedom and want everyone to enjoy themselves, there is obviously some rules that need to be addressed. If I go out today and fly my full size plane and as I approach the airport I have to manuever to miss a quadcopter flying at 1500 feet, I am going to be a little more than upset. With priviledge comes responsibility, and the problem is that there are many out there, some even on this website who do not take responsibility in a serious fashion. The rules they have written are going to be enforced in some measure or another. I do not want to see the airport manager with the ability to shut down a local field because he doesn't like it, and hopefully there is a measure in the rules to allow people to challenge these decisions, but I can tell you in most cases the FAA is going to side with the airport, which is why this is disturbing to me. This country was founded on the principle of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but if that pursuit of happiness is endangering another's life, there is a point and time we have to accept that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

bradpaul

Rules do not stop the criminal, the idiot, or those uninformed of the rules, they do allow government to control the law abiding informed citizen. If you endanger someones safety and cause harm there are more then enough laws both criminal and civil to address that.

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

I agree bradpaul, the rules do not seem to keep the idiots from being idiots, it does however give the authorities something to base an accepted form of behavior on, and allow the law to prosecute those who do not confrom to it. Most of us do not plan to go out and murder someone, and if we do the laws are not likely to stop us. However, the laws are there so that we know what is expected of us, and we can be held accountable in a court of law if we break those laws. The fact the FAA lost two previous suits, means they intend to use these laws in court so as not to lose any more cases. Like it not, they intend to create an environment where those who refuse to follow the rules can be held accountable.

bradpaul

If your actions injure either bodily, or financially another person there are laws already on the books to address that, The micro management by endless bureaucratic regulation only serves to keep the parasite class in control.

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

While that may be true, whenpeople go out an intentionally do things that could endanger the public these laws need to be available to prosecute them. No one might be injured by a drone flying near the approach of the airport, but the danger is there, as well as the ptential for harm. If there is no law on the books for the parties to be prosecuted, they will continue to do it again until someone gets killed, and then it is too late. The idea is to prevent a tragedy, not to respond to one after somone is seriously injured or killed. I think we are making a mountain out of a molehill if you want to know the truth.

aeajr

My Feedback: (2)

I am all for the "official title" for AMA. That is implied by the new web page on the FAA web site.

As I read it, the context of this "community based organization" has to do with setting up safety rules and guidelines for operation, maximum weight, etc. However AMA has no policing or enforcement authority nor do I think they want to be the model aviation police.

As I understand it, as written in the regs, this community based organization would work with the FAA to coordinate and communicate about rules and guidelines they have put in place.

If you are operating under the rules and guidelines of the "community based organization" you are good. If you are operating outside the rules and guidelines of the "community based organization", CBO, you would be subject to other regulations and or penalties.

I could see them saying that if you are operating outside the safety rules and guidelines of the CBO then you might be deemed to be operating in a "reckless manner" or endangering the safety of the National Airspace.

Not sure what "business thinking" you are expecting from AMA but I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this. What would you want them to do that they don't do now?

cj_rumley

It puzzles me every time I see this parroting of the HS Driver's Ed admonition that 'driving is a privilege, not a right.' I've not yet seen the Bill of Privileges.........John She, can you post a pointer to it?

JohnShe

lol :-)

radfordc

My Feedback: (14)

While there is a "Bill of Rights" you would need to look pretty hard to find a right to endanger others lives through your own "pursuit of happiness". So it comes down to what is really acceptable before you become a danger to the NAS. The FAA tends to come down on the side of "more regulation is safer", while most of us fall to the other side.

GerKonig

You make a lot of sense to me. The problem you will find here is that a lot (most) of the people posting are legally old farts. Many are living in a country that does not exist anymore (while others live in la-la-land) not to mention those that live in a bubble (bubble dwellers)... Plus you have those with obvious early dementia.
Then you have those that think that anarchy is the solution, and that living in the far west (in last century) is the solution to all problems. When horse drawn carriages where used no radars or cameras were needed to check the speed:-) New technologies will bring new regulations. We did not need the FAA in the 1800... I remember when people were talking obout our "dangerous" giant scale models, "an accident waiting to happen". Well, they are everywhere, and the world did not end. This new technology will have to be restricted, because I do not want to have any drone hovering over my head. And I have seen beautiful pictures and videos taken in HD using drones. But just imagine you step out of St.Peter's in the Vatican, just do find two dozens of people using drones to film, or take pictures... Or over Times Square at a busy time:-) (just an example)

Unfortunately we cannot depend on common sense. Why? Because it is the least common of ALL senses... And also, I do not want to fly into a drone with a full scale airplane or chopper.

Yes, regulation is needed, and eventually, you will have it. The same way other activities have regulations. And if you think you have a God given right, to drive a car, a boat, fly an airplane, etc, tell that to your lawyer when the moment comes, so he can have a reason to crack up...

On the other hand regulation is needed because these devices have a lot of potential to be used for many, many "good" things.

Gerry

JohnShe

Actually, congress requires the agencies to write regulations in order to enforce laws written by congress. The problem is, that writing regulations is extremely difficult.

cj_rumley

What led you to that conclusion? FAA issued some brief, simple guidance to modelers decades ago in AC 91-57 which is advisory and not regulatory, and has been very laissez faire toward the modeling community, even looking the other way while our national CBO promotes operation outside of the FAA guidelines. To the this day, they have never issued a regulation for model aircraft operation. The only 'regulation' ever put on our operation is federal statute instituted as a result of lobbying by our CBO. FAA did not create this law, but like it or not (they have been quite clear that they did not want to regulate model aircraft), it is their obligation to enforce it.
Keeping the NAS safe for navigation is their mission. Why would anyone have a problem with that?

bradpaul

cj I think I found it, I might be wrong but it looks like it is on page 3472 of the Affordable Care Act

cj_rumley

Thanks for the lead, Brad. I'll get another cy from GPO; the one I had replaced a Sears catalog in the loo.

radfordc

My Feedback: (14)

It's based on me being a licensed pilot and having to deal with the FAA routinely.

Bob Hoover might.

http://www.collegetermpapers.com/Ter...e_Review.shtml

cj_rumley

Model aircraft operators don't need a medical cert, at least not yet (seriously, it has been considered and chronicled in this forum http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...abilities.html). AMA bureaucrats may be up to another lobbying effort behind the curtain though, so one can't know for certain what is in the programming.

TimJ

rofl!

TimJ

take the time to read the story. One of a few things to take away from the Bob Hover story is that government agency's middle management can screw you around.