Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

Be Worried Now. NTSB Says RC=aircraft

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

Be Worried Now. NTSB Says RC=aircraft

Old 11-23-2014, 06:56 PM
  #126  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun
Um , , Mr She ? ....... Would you mind explaining why you say LCS is trolling you , , when he has done nothing but repeat your words pretty much exactly as you wrote them ? I see plain as day where you say only idiots and commercial users will be affected , and you know what ?

I HOPE LIKE HELL YOUR RIGHT !!!!!

Now , that we're in agreement that us boring ol circle flyers oughta be left alone , at least OWN what ya said , rather than deny it just cause you don't like the guy who repeated it
Well init, you could be right, except you have lifted LCS's remark out of context. He was replying to this:

" Originally Posted by vertical grimmace

Maybe more the FAA. Issuing NOTAMS, that effect RC activities, with very little notice, that have an incredibly large area covered unnecessarily. That is why.

What if your club, has an event that they have worked to organize all year, that is needed to help pay their bills, and 2 day before the event a NOTAM is declared that shuts the event down? Where I live, the closest airport is 20 miles away from my flying site. It has been shut down before. How is a line of sight model a threat from 20 miles away? Very unreasonable IMO."


This has nothing to do with my remark about the NTSB. The NTSB does not issue these egregious NOTAMs, nor does the FAA directly. They are coming out of the posterior of the DHS. Unfortunately, the FAA has to enforce them.

The FAA has along history of supporting model aviation, so I am certain that all will be well.
Old 11-23-2014, 07:42 PM
  #127  
littlecrankshaf
My Feedback: (58)
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
Well init, you could be right, except you have lifted LCS's remark out of context. He was replying to this:

" Originally Posted by vertical grimmace

Maybe more the FAA. Issuing NOTAMS, that effect RC activities, with very little notice, that have an incredibly large area covered unnecessarily. That is why.

What if your club, has an event that they have worked to organize all year, that is needed to help pay their bills, and 2 day before the event a NOTAM is declared that shuts the event down? Where I live, the closest airport is 20 miles away from my flying site. It has been shut down before. How is a line of sight model a threat from 20 miles away? Very unreasonable IMO."


This has nothing to do with my remark about the NTSB. The NTSB does not issue these egregious NOTAMs, nor does the FAA directly. They are coming out of the posterior of the DHS. Unfortunately, the FAA has to enforce them.

The FAA has along history of supporting model aviation, so I am certain that all will be well.
Now; DHS and "egregious NOTAMs" = Before; "I cannot think of a single experience with the government that I had that was in any way unfair"... So, your contradictions have me convinced. LOL

Look, I understand there is no way to win an argument with you but the impossible challenge is a hobby of mine...Thank you for obliging me. LOL
Old 11-24-2014, 12:54 AM
  #128  
NorfolkSouthern
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,588
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
Agreed. AMA created and lobbied for the rules, and Congress enacted them in 336. Truly very simple, yet many folks are demonizing the US government in general and particularly FAA for interpreting the rules, as they must by law do in order to apply them as Congress intended and as your post appears to confirm they correctly did ("...says the exact same thing"). FAA did not create these rules, nor any rules regulating model aircraft other than the advisory AC91-57. It is most unlikely that FAA would have made such rules. If FAA were to make any such rules, they would be well off in the future as model airplanes are far off the critical path to incorporating UAS in the NAS. We as a group seem to currently be in the weird predicament of urging AMA on to free us from onerous government regulation designed and hastened through the lawmaking process by AMA.




Agreed again, recreational modelers should not be affected......but we are and will be. The savior needed something to save us from.
With the NTSB ruling as it stands currently, how do you feel recreational modelers will be affected, cj_rumley? I am seeing posts by club flyers who believe they won't be touched, yet I am also reading about events being cancelled and engineering being transferred overseas.

Do you personally feel that all this will put a huge dent in the hobby, or will live go on as normal after the quad copters and cameras are effectively rounded up? Personally, I don't see an end to FPV, photography, and people using their drones to get a different vantage point to their surroundings.

If these people are flying outside a club field, yet in a manner that is safe and within legal guidelines (no goggles but with a video screen and downlink, within sight, below 400', 5 miles from an airport, no money involved), will they still be subject to regulation, or do you feel the FAA would look the other direction? I could have the hunch the FAA would pay no attention, but I can't say I'm entirely sure at this point. Keep in mind that the drone that was being used in the incident wasn't a quad or heli.

Well, so what do you think?
Old 11-24-2014, 06:02 AM
  #129  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern
With the NTSB ruling as it stands currently, how do you feel recreational modelers will be affected, cj_rumley? I am seeing posts by club flyers who believe they won't be touched, yet I am also reading about events being cancelled and engineering being transferred overseas.

Do you personally feel that all this will put a huge dent in the hobby, or will live go on as normal after the quad copters and cameras are effectively rounded up? Personally, I don't see an end to FPV, photography, and people using their drones to get a different vantage point to their surroundings.

If these people are flying outside a club field, yet in a manner that is safe and within legal guidelines (no goggles but with a video screen and downlink, within sight, below 400', 5 miles from an airport, no money involved), will they still be subject to regulation, or do you feel the FAA would look the other direction? I could have the hunch the FAA would pay no attention, but I can't say I'm entirely sure at this point. Keep in mind that the drone that was being used in the incident wasn't a quad or heli.

Well, so what do you think?
I know that your question is directed at CJ, but I cannot help but chime in.

Don't know much about events being cancelled, although some of the TFRs could be a cause. Nor do I have clue about engineering being transferred overseas, unless you are referring to the business practice of off-shoring labor.

As far as the NTSB legal ruling, it should only effect the irresponsible individuals who cannot or will not follow the safety guidelines of a CBO, like the AMA. Nobody is going to round up our toys, have no fear of that.

You seem to be mixing commercial and recreational activities together. Commercial and public service UAS operations will be regulated, count on it. The law and the FAA have said that recreational activities will not be regulated as long as we follow the guidelines and programs of the AMA or any other CBO. I think we can trust them on this.

Remember this, we don't have to join the AMA or any other club. We can fly anywhere that we have permission as long as we do it safely. And we can fly anything we want to fly, fixed wing, rotary wing or even anti-grav when the technology becomes available. And that includes any type of reliable guidance technology such as R/C VLOS, FPV or ESP.
Old 11-24-2014, 06:41 AM
  #130  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by acdii
^This^

It only takes a few idiots to ruin the punch for the rest of us. There is one way we can fight back, just remember who is in office and vote them out. Find candidates who will support our hobby, and stand behind them. This goes not only for our hobby, but for everything else the gestapo, er, government is doing now to try to control all aspects of our lives.

I am in favor of fining idiots like this, but, not for added regulations for a hobby such as ours. A few rules regarding UAV's, yes, keep them line of sight, or face fines, dont fly them close to people or buildings, unless it is being done under a permitted purpose such as movie making, or some sort of commercial enterprise, and done under strict guidance pertaining to the issued permit. Other than that, leave us alone to enjoy our hobby.
We are only 130K strong and maybe a half million flying some kind of R/C. When the comment period to the FAA on the subject they only received 30 some thousand comments. How do U expect to vote out those that side with the NTSB & FAA. It's imperative that we keep informing our congressmen and senators as to the plight of out Hobby/Sport and the Importance of keeping the government out of regulating it out of existence like they have pretty much done to General Aviation. Just be happy the Lawyers haven't found us YET.
Old 11-24-2014, 09:05 AM
  #131  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog
We are only 130K strong and maybe a half million flying some kind of R/C. When the comment period to the FAA on the subject they only received 30 some thousand comments. How do U expect to vote out those that side with the NTSB & FAA. It's imperative that we keep informing our congressmen and senators as to the plight of out Hobby/Sport and the Importance of keeping the government out of regulating it out of existence like they have pretty much done to General Aviation. Just be happy the Lawyers haven't found us YET.
There will be no regulations for recreational model aviation, we have already won. As far as siding with the NTSB, DHS and FAA, their purpose is to protect all forms of aviation and that is exactly what they are trying to do. We can argue the quality of their work I suppose, but it won't get us anywhere.

Have you read any of the comments? The FAA is reviewing them at a rate of 100 to 300 every work day and posting them on the website. I pick through the newly posted ones in a sort of semi-random fashion, and I am horrified by the low quality and ignorance displayed in those comments. Decent meaningful comments are so rare that I can go for several days in a row and never find one.
Old 11-24-2014, 09:07 AM
  #132  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf
Now; DHS and "egregious NOTAMs" = Before; "I cannot think of a single experience with the government that I had that was in any way unfair"... So, your contradictions have me convinced. LOL

Look, I understand there is no way to win an argument with you but the impossible challenge is a hobby of mine...Thank you for obliging me. LOL
Keep trying, I need the laughs.
Old 11-24-2014, 10:34 AM
  #133  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern
With the NTSB ruling as it stands currently, how do you feel recreational modelers will be affected, cj_rumley? I am seeing posts by club flyers who believe they won't be touched, yet I am also reading about events being cancelled and engineering being transferred overseas.

Do you personally feel that all this will put a huge dent in the hobby, or will live go on as normal after the quad copters and cameras are effectively rounded up? Personally, I don't see an end to FPV, photography, and people using their drones to get a different vantage point to their surroundings.

If these people are flying outside a club field, yet in a manner that is safe and within legal guidelines (no goggles but with a video screen and downlink, within sight, below 400', 5 miles from an airport, no money involved), will they still be subject to regulation, or do you feel the FAA would look the other direction? I could have the hunch the FAA would pay no attention, but I can't say I'm entirely sure at this point. Keep in mind that the drone that was being used in the incident wasn't a quad or heli.

Well, so what do you think?

The NTSB ruling boils down to a (re)confirmation that FAA does have authority to control the airspace in the US, which was contested by Pirker's legal defense, an argument that the administrative judge bought. NTSB overruled, which was far from surprising to me, as I see it as simply a restatement of what most of us modelers have believed and accepted up until UAS emerged on the scene and FAA recognized the need to regulate them.

The near-term effect of this ruling is that Pirker is screwed. To that I say "tough noogies." His grandstanding has done harm to the public perception of our model aircraft sport and hobby, particularly those involved with FPV. Some of the FPV enthusiasts saw him as a hero of sorts, establishing a precedent that buys them time in the near-term to pursue some aspects (e.g., BLOS) of their flying interests before sUAS rules are established and that activity is authorized. I understand their frustration at the tempo of sUAS regulatory material development, but have never considered the admin judges ruling in Pirker a sustainable fix to accommodate that activity.

I don't foresee any significant dent in the hobby by the NTSB ruling..........it just returns modeldom to the same state it was in re FAA oversight before the now-overruled Pirker determination. Folks flying FPV with goggles may see it differently.

Based on about 4 decades of demonstrated hands-off policy toward modelers, I do feel they will look the other direction from model aircraft being operated responsibly, whether at a club with AMA rules or outside that venue guided by common sense and sans rules.

Keep in mind that FAA has said and demonstrated they do not need/want to regulate model aircraft, and that extends to rules spelled out in Sect 336. Those rules only apply to modelers that claim exception from rules FAA may make, because they are 'programmed' by a CBO. Sec 336 does not require FAA to make any such rules that the the CBO exception would apply to, and I fully expect they will not. I do expect an update to AC 91-57 that will provide guidance but not mandatory rules. That will put 336 where it belongs, down the toilet.

cj
Old 11-24-2014, 11:35 AM
  #134  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

[QUOTE=JohnShe;11924157]There will be no regulations for recreational model aviation, we have already won. As far as siding with the NTSB, DHS and FAA, their purpose is to protect all forms of aviation and that is exactly what they are trying to do. We can argue the quality of their work I suppose, but it won't get us anywhere.

Have you read any of the comments? The FAA is reviewing them at a rate of 100 to 300 every work day and posting them on the website. I pick through the newly posted ones in a sort of semi-random fashion, and I am horrified by the low quality and ignorance displayed in those comments. Decent meaningful comments are so rare that I can go for several days in a row and never find one.[/QUOTE
Not every one in the Hobby are Rhodes Scholars just Products of Public education.

Johnny Johnny Johnny: Just like an Ostrich with your head in the sand .... Never ever say there won't be any regulation by some government origination like the FAA. The Sheite will hit the fan when not if some dummy get's in the way of a full scale aircraft and causes an accident or an Incident
Old 11-24-2014, 12:37 PM
  #135  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog

Not every one in the Hobby are Rhodes Scholars just Products of Public education.
Good point, I am not a roads scholar either, I can't even spell it.

Originally Posted by HoundDog
Johnny Johnny Johnny: Just like an
Originally Posted by HoundDog
Ostrich with your head in the sand .... Never ever say there won't be any regulation by some government origination like the FAA. The Sheite will hit the fan when not if some dummy get's in the way of a full scale aircraft and causes an accident or an Incident
They have no budget or admitted desire to write model airplane regulations. They are overwhelmed by the UAS situation and they won't be able to meet their deadline for that. Once the interpretive rule goes into effect, that will be the only regulation there will be for model airplanes. let's hope that they pay attention to the few good comments, if there are any besides mine, and get the rule right this time.

As far as the dummies go, maybe one day it will happen, but it won't be one of us, and they can't blame it on us. Based on news reports that I have seen, it has already come close to happening more that once. The FAA and law enforcement will hunt the individual down and punish him. Based on the seemingly overwhelming number of idiots out there, and with the new court ruling, they ought to be able to collect enough money in fines to pay off the national debt.
Old 11-24-2014, 02:01 PM
  #136  
kdunlap
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (12)
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Sorry, we're sliding down the slippery slope if we redefine the mission of the FAA according to how some view Pirker. FAA's role is to "regulate civil aviation to promote safety." (see FAA website) The question is what categories of model aircraft need to be regulated? My short answer is none of them. (-I could acknowledge a weight limit at some point as you probably don't want a BLOS hunk of metal that can take out an airplane engine to fly the skies without rules.) But for now we don't need a federal agency telling us how to build and fly hobby aircraft. So, we don't want to agree with an NTSB decision that defines RC airplanes as part of "civil aviation" or in need of "regulation." Just doesn't make any sense. That leads to equipage mandates, construction regulations, and pilot licenses. Rather, we need to rely on local laws that provide remedies to injuries caused by people who engage in careless behavior. You hit somebody with a golf ball... there is a local law for that... not a federal agency. You break a window with a baseball .... there is a local law for that.. not a federal agency... you drop a brick off a building and hurt someone there is a local law for that... not a federal agency....

Why some folks want to believe that regulation of a hobby is a good thing or believe that the "FAA would never do that to model aviation" is beyond me. One last thing, there is also a belief that Pirker only applies to careless or reckless operation.. That's wishful thinking. The NTSB has defined that FAA regulates all things that fly in the air, "regardless of size." That will apply to every aspect of "safety." Guess what's going to happen the next time your motor conks out on your plane? You could be cited for recklessly flying a craft with a known defect. The lawyers say cha ching (Makes that park flyer not look like a deal anymore.) FAA is not going to regulate. The lawyers will....
Old 11-24-2014, 02:52 PM
  #137  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by kdunlap
Sorry, we're sliding down the slippery slope if we redefine the mission of the FAA according to how some view Pirker. FAA's role is to "regulate civil aviation to promote safety." (see FAA website) The question is what categories of model aircraft need to be regulated? My short answer is none of them. (-I could acknowledge a weight limit at some point as you probably don't want a BLOS hunk of metal that can take out an airplane engine to fly the skies without rules.) But for now we don't need a federal agency telling us how to build and fly hobby aircraft. So, we don't want to agree with an NTSB decision that defines RC airplanes as part of "civil aviation" or in need of "regulation." Just doesn't make any sense. That leads to equipage mandates, construction regulations, and pilot licenses. Rather, we need to rely on local laws that provide remedies to injuries caused by people who engage in careless behavior. You hit somebody with a golf ball... there is a local law for that... not a federal agency. You break a window with a baseball .... there is a local law for that.. not a federal agency... you drop a brick off a building and hurt someone there is a local law for that... not a federal agency....

(snipped)
Laws in my locality do not provide remedies for injuries due to somebody's negligence, relying instead on civil courts to referee such issues. My community doesn't have any laws that prohibit hitting someone with a golf ball, or a window with a baseball, either. YMMV

Local laws in many communities do 'regulate' model aircraft, very expediently by prohibiting their operation from/over public property, or entirely within the limits of the political subdivision. Makes enforcement much simpler than arguing over whether the actions of people involved in an incident were/are behaving carelessly. Is that really what you want?

And BTW, what would you recommend we do, for those among us that agree we don't want to agree with NTSB's decision?
Old 11-24-2014, 04:37 PM
  #138  
kdunlap
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (12)
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Well, well well... News is breaking tonight on the new drone rules. See google news. You will need a pilots license.....

http://gizmodo.com/report-faa-will-r...-to-1662563404
Old 11-24-2014, 04:59 PM
  #139  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by kdunlap
Well, well well... News is breaking tonight on the new drone rules. See google news. You will need a pilots license.....

http://gizmodo.com/report-faa-will-r...-to-1662563404

The article very specifically addresses commercial drones. Those rules, mentioned in the article, have no bearing on recreational model aviation. I strongly urge you to read the 2012 FAA Modernization Act and the FAA Interpretive Rule of section 336 of that act. I think you will better understand the FAA's new mission and the impact on recreational model aviation.
Old 11-25-2014, 08:31 AM
  #140  
littlecrankshaf
My Feedback: (58)
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
The article very specifically addresses commercial drones. Those rules, mentioned in the article, have no bearing on recreational model aviation. I strongly urge you to read the 2012 FAA Modernization Act and the FAA Interpretive Rule of section 336 of that act. I think you will better understand the FAA's new mission and the impact on recreational model aviation.
Look into my eyes...you eye lids are growing heavy...read and accept...all will be well... LOL
Old 11-25-2014, 09:11 AM
  #141  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf
Look into my eyes...you eye lids are growing heavy...read and accept...all will be well... LOL
Ah, yes, the old tinfoil cap point of view. Thanks for another morning chuckle.
Old 11-27-2014, 01:33 PM
  #142  
FLAPHappy
My Feedback: (209)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: right here
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

John this is by not any means funny no matter who posts comical posts on a thread, this is really about what is currently happening now,not in the future, it's going on right now. Those that don't know or Unaware of the potential danger it, puts Airlines in jeopardy, but more important human lives. See this Link , watch the Video.. This applies to all in RC.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...rliners-spike/
Old 11-27-2014, 02:13 PM
  #143  
vertical grimmace
My Feedback: (1)
 
vertical grimmace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ft collins , CO
Posts: 7,252
Received 12 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

I wonder out of all of these sightings, how many were being flown line of sight, by AMA members?
Old 11-27-2014, 05:26 PM
  #144  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by vertical grimmace
I wonder out of all of these sightings, how many were being flown line of sight, by AMA members?
My best guess is zero.
Old 11-27-2014, 05:29 PM
  #145  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by FLAPHappy
John this is by not any means funny no matter who posts comical posts on a thread, this is really about what is currently happening now,not in the future, it's going on right now. Those that don't know or Unaware of the potential danger it, puts Airlines in jeopardy, but more important human lives. See this Link , watch the Video.. This applies to all in RC.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...rliners-spike/
The Washington Post article is far more informative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...984_story.html
Old 11-27-2014, 06:21 PM
  #146  
vertical grimmace
My Feedback: (1)
 
vertical grimmace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ft collins , CO
Posts: 7,252
Received 12 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
My best guess is zero.

Too bad some Johnny come lately type of model is going to drag what we all have been enjoying for years down with it, because there is no clear separation of the types.
Old 11-27-2014, 06:55 PM
  #147  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Sure there is, but it's easier to just blame one type, and to fear monger that the end of modeling as we know it is close at hand. Nothing can be father than the truth. A couple of DJI Phantoms didn't cause this....it's much bigger than that, but again, easier to just blame the few rather than dig deeper.
Old 11-27-2014, 07:02 PM
  #148  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
Sure there is, but it's easier to just blame one type, and to fear monger that the end of modeling as we know it is close at hand. Nothing can be father than the truth. A couple of DJI Phantoms didn't cause this....it's much bigger than that, but again, easier to just blame the few rather than dig deeper.
Why blame the type? We all know that FPV or any other technology can be operated safely. It is the morons, imbeciles, miscreants and sociopaths who cause the problems. Law enforcement is already going after them, as it should be.
Old 11-27-2014, 07:10 PM
  #149  
vertical grimmace
My Feedback: (1)
 
vertical grimmace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ft collins , CO
Posts: 7,252
Received 12 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Why is it that you guys completely miss the point? Just as I choose not to associate with certain types of people because I do not want to be brought down by them, I feel the same way about FPV.

They are the problem, so, the responsible ones, need to figure out how to reign in their bad elements. Meanwhile, I do not want to be associated with it. DO you understand? I am going to guess not, because I am finding that you guys are choosing not to.
Old 11-27-2014, 07:14 PM
  #150  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
Why blame the type? We all know that FPV or any other technology can be operated safely. It is the morons, imbeciles, miscreants and sociopaths who cause the problems. Law enforcement is already going after them, as it should be.
Actually, I agree. It's the few that are causing the problems. And yes, I hope LE goes after them with full force and effect, and after a few well publicized examples, perhaps it will give others pause to think about what they are doing.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.