time to stop the dromes..........NOW
12-05-2014, 12:01 PM
#251
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That 25% statistic might be off just a bit:
Current US population= 317 million
Total US persons incarcerated = 2.3 million
= 0.73%
Even if you add in all those on probation and parole, the rate is "only" 2.2%
Other countries jail at a higher rate, but because the average US sentence is MUCH longer than other developed nations, we house the highest percentage of our population in jail at any given time.
So we're bad, but not THAT bad.
The US does house about 25% of the world's total prisoners, maybe that's what you were thinking of?
Current US population= 317 million
Total US persons incarcerated = 2.3 million
= 0.73%
Even if you add in all those on probation and parole, the rate is "only" 2.2%
Other countries jail at a higher rate, but because the average US sentence is MUCH longer than other developed nations, we house the highest percentage of our population in jail at any given time.
So we're bad, but not THAT bad.
The US does house about 25% of the world's total prisoners, maybe that's what you were thinking of?
12-05-2014, 12:30 PM
#252
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-05-2014, 12:50 PM
#253
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So under their existing authority to regulate the usage of airspace they can limit "model aircraft: to 400' and if they decide that all pilots of aircraft need a license and medical they can require that for "model aircraft" pilots.
Remember the TSA just declared "model aircraft" to be "aircraft"
Remember the TSA just declared "model aircraft" to be "aircraft"
TSA? Did you mean the NTSB court decision (yes SP, in the legal sense) that acknowledged that any man made flying object is an aircraft? I think the decision was "an aircraft is an aircraft, no matter how small.
12-05-2014, 01:05 PM
#254
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMA Headquarters staff member and yes, though I didn't quote him directly I am sure I correctly related something that was attributed to him in the minutes of cited meeting that you were unable or unwilling to bother looking up to easily verify for yourself.
12-05-2014, 04:13 PM
#256
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Council was informed that the FAA cancelled Advisory Circular 91-57. They have been working on a new replacement advisory circular that would reconcile the differences between the old 91-57 and Section 336. Hanson was surprised that they did not have a new one in place before they cancelled 91-57. For modelers, this means there are two ways they can operate, under 336 which means you must be an AMA member, or by filing a CFR. Hanson believes we (AMA) will get to see the new AC before it is final; he expects it will be a reconciliation of AC 91-57, Section 336 and the Interpretive Rule. The new AC could go out to comment, but it is not required. The message we need to convey to our members is they should follow the AMA Safety Code.
(Note: On the Monday following this meeting the FAA rescinded their cancellation of AC 91-57.)
12-05-2014, 05:37 PM
#257
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will note from the FAA interpretation that there is a difference of opinion on the efficacy of the Advanced Flight Systems Operations program. The AMA could have resolved it quite easily through negotiation if they had not invalidated the AMA/FAA memorandum of agreement with their ill-advised lawsuit.
12-05-2014, 07:02 PM
#258
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will note from the FAA interpretation that there is a difference of opinion on the efficacy of the Advanced Flight Systems Operations program. The AMA could have resolved it quite easily through negotiation if they had not invalidated the AMA/FAA memorandum of agreement with their ill-advised lawsuit.
12-05-2014, 07:54 PM
#259
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, what can one expect from a measly $1,000,000 more or less expended on lobbying congress and creating the appurtenances of a CBO? I don't think the ill-advised lawsuit has been initiated, only a filing of notice that such is being contemplated. Things may change when AMA' s lawyer gets spanked in the Pirker case.
"On Tuesday, November 18, 2014, the DC Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a motion to hold the petition for review in abeyance."
Which definitely means that it has been filed in the courts. The judge has given the AMA a second chance to negotiate a deal with the FAA but the AMA idiots are too dumb to see it for what it is. It is already too late.
12-05-2014, 08:32 PM
#260
technically it is not really a lawsuit, it is a petition for a court review of the FAA interpretation of section 336. The latest report from the AMA says:
"On Tuesday, November 18, 2014, the DC Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a motion to hold the petition for review in abeyance."
Which definitely means that it has been filed in the courts. The judge has given the AMA a second chance to negotiate a deal with the FAA but the AMA idiots are too dumb to see it for what it is. It is already too late.
"On Tuesday, November 18, 2014, the DC Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a motion to hold the petition for review in abeyance."
Which definitely means that it has been filed in the courts. The judge has given the AMA a second chance to negotiate a deal with the FAA but the AMA idiots are too dumb to see it for what it is. It is already too late.
12-06-2014, 07:19 AM
#261
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-06-2014, 12:15 PM
#263
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-08-2014, 01:07 PM
#264
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hither & Yonder, USA
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what the FAA, needs to really concern itself with and stay out of the rc hobbyists, lives.... http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/3-u...ome/ar-BBguMYr
12-08-2014, 03:23 PM
#267
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your citation says "To operate under 336 means you must be an AMA member (ref Rich Hanson, Oct 11 EC meeting)" That is so untrue that my mind blanked out when I saw it. The FAA cannot force anyone to join any organization that is a guaranteed right under the 1st amendment. Who is "Rich Hanson" and are you sure that you quoted him correctly?
Operating “within the programming” means you have to meet the requirements for program participation established by the CBO. In AMA’s case that means you must be a member.
Around here, LA County Parks REQUIRES AMA membership to fly at Whittier Narrows, so at least on the county level they can get away with it. They REQUIRE NAMBA (A RC boat CBO) membership to run boats at Legg Lake, also in Whittier Narrows park. Never been an issue.
One other comment on this. Since the very start of this long and winding road the FAA has been clear that they can see multiple paths to compliance. Section 336 gives one such path. For those who choose not to follow Section 336 I am certain that the FAA will have rules pertaining to model aircraft in the coming sUAS Rule. P.L. 112-95 only prohibits new model aircraft rules for those operations conducted under Section 336. So it makes sense that the FAA will provide a structure for those who freely choose not to follow Section 336, which requires belonging to a CBO.
12-09-2014, 09:35 AM
#268
This brings up a question. I know there are always people who feel the need to have a " Cause ". That being said, of everyone participating in this thread how many of you are current AMA members who actively fly your models? By actively I mean minimum one trip to an AMA site per month. As for myself I have been an AMA member since 1977 and fly at least 3 times a month. I suspect Bill ( Silent-AV8R ) does too.
12-09-2014, 09:56 AM
#270
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This brings up a question. I know there are always people who feel the need to have a " Cause ". That being said, of everyone participating in this thread how many of you are current AMA members who actively fly your models? By actively I mean minimum one trip to an AMA site per month. As for myself I have been an AMA member since 1977 and fly at least 3 times a month. I suspect Bill ( Silent-AV8R ) does too.
12-09-2014, 10:03 AM
#271
Yea one day I will get there. Right now I have 4 teenagers at home. Not really trying to start anything here but I see a high percentage of guys who only participate in the AMA threads. Just wondering if everyone here has a stake in what the future holds or just likes to be in the hotbed of controversy?
12-09-2014, 10:19 AM
#272
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You already got the answer as to who Rich Hanson is. That you did not know who he is troubles me since you spend a lot of time in the AMA forum and Rich's name has been all over anything that the AMA has done or said regarding the FAA. And I can say that he was quoted correctly. In fact, here is what he told me in an email when I asked him this question directly:
Operating “within the programming” means you have to meet the requirements for program participation established by the CBO. In AMA’s case that means you must be a member.
It is true that making people join the AMA might be a problem if that is what they are in fact doing. But the law does not stipulate the AMA, it simply says "a CBO." Right now the AMA is the only show in town. However, if/when other CBOs pop up then you can have a choice.
Around here, LA County Parks REQUIRES AMA membership to fly at Whittier Narrows, so at least on the county level they can get away with it. They REQUIRE NAMBA (A RC boat CBO) membership to run boats at Legg Lake, also in Whittier Narrows park. Never been an issue.
One other comment on this. Since the very start of this long and winding road the FAA has been clear that they can see multiple paths to compliance. Section 336 gives one such path. For those who choose not to follow Section 336 I am certain that the FAA will have rules pertaining to model aircraft in the coming sUAS Rule. P.L. 112-95 only prohibits new model aircraft rules for those operations conducted under Section 336. So it makes sense that the FAA will provide a structure for those who freely choose not to follow Section 336, which requires belonging to a CBO.
Operating “within the programming” means you have to meet the requirements for program participation established by the CBO. In AMA’s case that means you must be a member.
It is true that making people join the AMA might be a problem if that is what they are in fact doing. But the law does not stipulate the AMA, it simply says "a CBO." Right now the AMA is the only show in town. However, if/when other CBOs pop up then you can have a choice.
Around here, LA County Parks REQUIRES AMA membership to fly at Whittier Narrows, so at least on the county level they can get away with it. They REQUIRE NAMBA (A RC boat CBO) membership to run boats at Legg Lake, also in Whittier Narrows park. Never been an issue.
One other comment on this. Since the very start of this long and winding road the FAA has been clear that they can see multiple paths to compliance. Section 336 gives one such path. For those who choose not to follow Section 336 I am certain that the FAA will have rules pertaining to model aircraft in the coming sUAS Rule. P.L. 112-95 only prohibits new model aircraft rules for those operations conducted under Section 336. So it makes sense that the FAA will provide a structure for those who freely choose not to follow Section 336, which requires belonging to a CBO.
If you cannot or will not follow section 336 then you will be subject to whatever sUAS or UAS regulations that the FAA writes. meanwhile I will be laughing all the way to my AMA club field. I am certain, that I could find other places to fly if I wanted to, but the AMA club field is good enough for me and the dues are not too onerous.
12-09-2014, 10:36 AM
#273
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, now I know who you are talking about. I don't pay much attention to him and tend to forget about him. A private message is not an official AMA statement. And, he is dead wrong. The law says to follow the guidelines. It says nothing about having to be a CBO a member and neither does the FAA interpretation.
If you cannot or will not follow section 336 then you will be subject to whatever sUAS or UAS regulations that the FAA writes. meanwhile I will be laughing all the way to my AMA club field. I am certain, that I could find other places to fly if I wanted to, but the AMA club field is good enough for me and the dues are not too onerous.
If you cannot or will not follow section 336 then you will be subject to whatever sUAS or UAS regulations that the FAA writes. meanwhile I will be laughing all the way to my AMA club field. I am certain, that I could find other places to fly if I wanted to, but the AMA club field is good enough for me and the dues are not too onerous.
Come on now...fess up. You really have no real Idea who Rich H. is or who Silent Aviator is either for that matter... But you could probably do his job without any real change noticed. LOL
12-09-2014, 11:31 AM
#274
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silent Aviator posts in the forum, that id all I know or care to know. I know who Rich H. is, he just doesn't impress me.
12-09-2014, 05:55 PM
#275
This brings up a question. I know there are always people who feel the need to have a " Cause ". That being said, of everyone participating in this thread how many of you are current AMA members who actively fly your models? By actively I mean minimum one trip to an AMA site per month. As for myself I have been an AMA member since 1977 and fly at least 3 times a month. I suspect Bill ( Silent-AV8R ) does too.
Almost every day of the year i go to one field or another 3 in Wisconsin and 1 in Arizona. Been instructing lately if U call that flying. The Treasurer of our Lake Land R/C in Wisconsin actually made every flyable and a couple not too flyable. The bad thing about being retired is U gota be so OLD the good thing every day is Saturday and your (Dayley) Flying Buddys are as old or older than U.
Hell One of our senior flyers was my Industrial Arts Teacher (Blue Print Reading) in High School. and I graduated in '62.