View Poll Results: Do we really need the AMA???
Voters: 316. You may not vote on this poll
Do we really need the ama, or is it just like auto insurance...another ripoff?
12-21-2014, 06:47 AM
#276
I think it would help any number of us make a better decision with respect to AMA support if there was more transparency out of the AMA. For example, I've read that the mishap reporting system is not standardized. Why is this important? Well, to make an informed decision on what type and amount of insurance we need should be based on hard data. I've advocated to AMA that they create a standardized mishap reporting system. The goal being that not only does it allow them to go to FAA with hard numbers in support of a safety record, but it also provides members a window into just how frequently we're crashing and how bad these are. What's missing is the framework for this reporting and the mechanism to ensure it happens. I think it would be a very powerful argument to take to the FAA if AMA was able to say for example: "At all of our chartered clubs last year, there were XXX crashes of aircraft greater than XX pounds, YYYY crashes of aircraft weighing between YY and XX pounds, and ZZZZ crashes of less than YY pounds. Of these crashes, RR were not on club property, and X resulted in any claimed property damage. At our clubs, there were a total of SSSS injuries, KKK of which were First Aid (as defined by OSHA), and M were more serious. Lastly, per reporting from our club leadership, there were a total of TTT substantive violations of our safety policy. NNN were handled through education and administrative measures, P resulted in termination of flying privileges.
I think the ability to go to FAA with that kind of hard data would create a powerful argument that our operations are safe, that we can prove that with hard data, and that we're holding members accountable to the code. It would also allow us to know what is and is not our major area of demonstrated risk and then design management system controls to mitigate that risk.
This is how a professional safety program is managed (I did this professionally), and thus it's not a "tin hat" type of recommendation. Interesting note, as of yet AMA has not responded.
I think the ability to go to FAA with that kind of hard data would create a powerful argument that our operations are safe, that we can prove that with hard data, and that we're holding members accountable to the code. It would also allow us to know what is and is not our major area of demonstrated risk and then design management system controls to mitigate that risk.
This is how a professional safety program is managed (I did this professionally), and thus it's not a "tin hat" type of recommendation. Interesting note, as of yet AMA has not responded.
12-21-2014, 08:29 AM
#277
If you read the part about Toys and Hobby Items if it is powered with more than 12 volts or exceeds 10 kilometers per hour it’s considered either a motorized vehicle or aircraft and as such is not covered.
PROPERTY NOT INSURED
"We" do not insure:
a. property of roomers or boarders who are not related to "you";
b. personal property normally kept at any other location "you" own, rent or occupy;
c. motorized vehicles or their equipment except:
(1) electric power assisted bicycles;
(2) wheelchairs or scooters having more than two wheels and specifically designed for the
carriage of a person who has a physical disability, that can attain speeds no greater than
32 kilometers per hour;
(3) watercraft;
(4) lawn mowers, snow blowers and other motorized gardening equipment; and
(5) motorized golf carts;
d. camper units, truck caps, trailers, or their equipment;
e. "aircraft" or their equipment.
Equipment includes audio, visual, recording, or transmitting equipment, powered by the electrical
system of a motorized vehicle or "aircraft".
Equipment does not include spare automobile parts.
Toys or hobby items such as model "aircraft" or children's battery powered all-terrain vehicles
using no more than a 12 volt battery or that can attain speeds no greater than 10 kilometers per
hour are not considered motorized vehicles or "aircraft";
f. sporting equipment where the loss or damage is due to its use;
g. breakage of eyeglasses, glassware, statuary, marbles, bric-a-brac, porcelain, and similar
fragile articles (other than jewellery, gems, watches, bronzes, precious and semi-precious
stones, cameras and photographic lenses) unless the loss or damage is caused by;
(1) any of the "Specified Perils"; or
(2) theft or attempted theft;
h. animals, birds or fish unless the loss or damage is caused by any of the "Specified Perils"
other than IMPACT BY AIRCRAFT, SPACECRAFT OR LAND VEHICLE;
i. property at any fairground, exhibition or exposition, for the purpose of exhibition, trade or sale;
j. evidence of debt or title; or
k. samples and goods held for sale.
12-21-2014, 08:47 AM
#278
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And for those who think their home owners policy is covering you. Just a heads up guys as to your models liability and loss due to fire, theft or vandalism on your property. Many new insurance policies have excluded our models. Even if your broker tells you that you are covered he is wrong if it is stated as excluded under “Property Not Insured”. You must read your policy thoroughly this is new in the last 4 years. Under this section it specifically states on page 12 of the policy http://www.wawanesa.com/resources/do...oklet_0115.pdf
If you read the part about Toys and Hobby Items if it is powered with more than 12 volts or exceeds 10 kilometers per hour it’s considered either a motorized vehicle or aircraft and as such is not covered.
PROPERTY NOT INSURED
"We" do not insure:
a. property of roomers or boarders who are not related to "you";
b. personal property normally kept at any other location "you" own, rent or occupy;
c. motorized vehicles or their equipment except:
(1) electric power assisted bicycles;
(2) wheelchairs or scooters having more than two wheels and specifically designed for the
carriage of a person who has a physical disability, that can attain speeds no greater than
32 kilometers per hour;
(3) watercraft;
(4) lawn mowers, snow blowers and other motorized gardening equipment; and
(5) motorized golf carts;
d. camper units, truck caps, trailers, or their equipment;
e. "aircraft" or their equipment.
Equipment includes audio, visual, recording, or transmitting equipment, powered by the electrical
system of a motorized vehicle or "aircraft".
Equipment does not include spare automobile parts.
Toys or hobby items such as model "aircraft" or children's battery powered all-terrain vehicles
using no more than a 12 volt battery or that can attain speeds no greater than 10 kilometers per
hour are not considered motorized vehicles or "aircraft";
f. sporting equipment where the loss or damage is due to its use;
g. breakage of eyeglasses, glassware, statuary, marbles, bric-a-brac, porcelain, and similar
fragile articles (other than jewellery, gems, watches, bronzes, precious and semi-precious
stones, cameras and photographic lenses) unless the loss or damage is caused by;
(1) any of the "Specified Perils"; or
(2) theft or attempted theft;
h. animals, birds or fish unless the loss or damage is caused by any of the "Specified Perils"
other than IMPACT BY AIRCRAFT, SPACECRAFT OR LAND VEHICLE;
i. property at any fairground, exhibition or exposition, for the purpose of exhibition, trade or sale;
j. evidence of debt or title; or
k. samples and goods held for sale.
If you read the part about Toys and Hobby Items if it is powered with more than 12 volts or exceeds 10 kilometers per hour it’s considered either a motorized vehicle or aircraft and as such is not covered.
PROPERTY NOT INSURED
"We" do not insure:
a. property of roomers or boarders who are not related to "you";
b. personal property normally kept at any other location "you" own, rent or occupy;
c. motorized vehicles or their equipment except:
(1) electric power assisted bicycles;
(2) wheelchairs or scooters having more than two wheels and specifically designed for the
carriage of a person who has a physical disability, that can attain speeds no greater than
32 kilometers per hour;
(3) watercraft;
(4) lawn mowers, snow blowers and other motorized gardening equipment; and
(5) motorized golf carts;
d. camper units, truck caps, trailers, or their equipment;
e. "aircraft" or their equipment.
Equipment includes audio, visual, recording, or transmitting equipment, powered by the electrical
system of a motorized vehicle or "aircraft".
Equipment does not include spare automobile parts.
Toys or hobby items such as model "aircraft" or children's battery powered all-terrain vehicles
using no more than a 12 volt battery or that can attain speeds no greater than 10 kilometers per
hour are not considered motorized vehicles or "aircraft";
f. sporting equipment where the loss or damage is due to its use;
g. breakage of eyeglasses, glassware, statuary, marbles, bric-a-brac, porcelain, and similar
fragile articles (other than jewellery, gems, watches, bronzes, precious and semi-precious
stones, cameras and photographic lenses) unless the loss or damage is caused by;
(1) any of the "Specified Perils"; or
(2) theft or attempted theft;
h. animals, birds or fish unless the loss or damage is caused by any of the "Specified Perils"
other than IMPACT BY AIRCRAFT, SPACECRAFT OR LAND VEHICLE;
i. property at any fairground, exhibition or exposition, for the purpose of exhibition, trade or sale;
j. evidence of debt or title; or
k. samples and goods held for sale.
12-21-2014, 08:49 AM
#279
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan,
IN
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it would help any number of us make a better decision with respect to AMA support if there was more transparency out of the AMA. For example, I've read that the mishap reporting system is not standardized. Why is this important? Well, to make an informed decision on what type and amount of insurance we need should be based on hard data. I've advocated to AMA that they create a standardized mishap reporting system. The goal being that not only does it allow them to go to FAA with hard numbers in support of a safety record, but it also provides members a window into just how frequently we're crashing and how bad these are. What's missing is the framework for this reporting and the mechanism to ensure it happens. I think it would be a very powerful argument to take to the FAA if AMA was able to say for example: "At all of our chartered clubs last year, there were XXX crashes of aircraft greater than XX pounds, YYYY crashes of aircraft weighing between YY and XX pounds, and ZZZZ crashes of less than YY pounds. Of these crashes, RR were not on club property, and X resulted in any claimed property damage. At our clubs, there were a total of SSSS injuries, KKK of which were First Aid (as defined by OSHA), and M were more serious. Lastly, per reporting from our club leadership, there were a total of TTT substantive violations of our safety policy. NNN were handled through education and administrative measures, P resulted in termination of flying privileges.
I think the ability to go to FAA with that kind of hard data would create a powerful argument that our operations are safe, that we can prove that with hard data, and that we're holding members accountable to the code. It would also allow us to know what is and is not our major area of demonstrated risk and then design management system controls to mitigate that risk.
This is how a professional safety program is managed (I did this professionally), and thus it's not a "tin hat" type of recommendation. Interesting note, as of yet AMA has not responded.
I think the ability to go to FAA with that kind of hard data would create a powerful argument that our operations are safe, that we can prove that with hard data, and that we're holding members accountable to the code. It would also allow us to know what is and is not our major area of demonstrated risk and then design management system controls to mitigate that risk.
This is how a professional safety program is managed (I did this professionally), and thus it's not a "tin hat" type of recommendation. Interesting note, as of yet AMA has not responded.
has responded, alright.
With rolled eyes, chuckles
and giant belly-laughs.
12-21-2014, 08:59 AM
#280
Senior Member
Fine, Don't send them anything then, If you're so unhappy with the organization, don't have anything to do with it. Simple answer, isn't it? And, if you're not a member, then why the complaining because it exists? I'm not a fan of the NRA either, but instead of complaining, I just send checks to the opposition. Much louder than words on a group that only a fraction of the AMA members even know about.
Complaining about anything in a forum is the computerized equivalent of dragging one foot, trying to stop a truck, and the other foot hard to the floor on the accelerator pedal.
I'm outta here, the naysayers have nothing to say, but they'll say it very loudly.
Complaining about anything in a forum is the computerized equivalent of dragging one foot, trying to stop a truck, and the other foot hard to the floor on the accelerator pedal.
I'm outta here, the naysayers have nothing to say, but they'll say it very loudly.
12-21-2014, 09:28 AM
#281
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fine, Don't send them anything then, If you're so unhappy with the organization, don't have anything to do with it. Simple answer, isn't it? And, if you're not a member, then why the complaining because it exists? I'm not a fan of the NRA either, but instead of complaining, I just send checks to the opposition. Much louder than words on a group that only a fraction of the AMA members even know about.
Complaining about anything in a forum is the computerized equivalent of dragging one foot, trying to stop a truck, and the other foot hard to the floor on the accelerator pedal.
I'm outta here, the naysayers have nothing to say, but they'll say it very loudly.
Complaining about anything in a forum is the computerized equivalent of dragging one foot, trying to stop a truck, and the other foot hard to the floor on the accelerator pedal.
I'm outta here, the naysayers have nothing to say, but they'll say it very loudly.
Last edited by littlecrankshaf; 12-21-2014 at 09:31 AM.
12-21-2014, 10:16 AM
#282
On further conversations with the insurance company it wasn’t the potential comprehensive loss that prompted this but the liability end. Most of this is due to the sensational reports in the media of the irresponsible behavior posted in the news and social media. I provided my broker and the insurance company with copies of my liability coverage through my modeling organization showing liability coverage. I also provided a letter witnessed by my broker and notary that I was only interested in comprehensive coverage and I would be providing my own liability coverage of 7.5 million through the modeling organization. They then issued a letter stating that I was covered for comprehensive for my model planes and incidentals.
If I had not done this they would not have covered any loss I might incure due to fire, theft etc.
Dennis
Last edited by Propworn; 12-21-2014 at 10:22 AM.
12-21-2014, 10:22 AM
#283
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You missed the bigger picture it’s not just the loss of comprehensive but those who claim they have liability coverage through their home owners this is an all inclusive exclusion. When I brought this to my broker’s attention he was shocked and contacted them if this is written into your policy there is no coverage what so ever you’re totally on your own.
On further conversations with the insurance company it wasn’t the potential comprehensive loss that prompted this but the liability end. Most of this is due to the sensational reports in the media of the irresponsible behavior posted in the news media and social media. I provided my broker and the insurance company with copies of my liability coverage through my modeling organization showing liability coverage. I also provided a letter witnessed by my broker and notary that I was only interested in comprehensive coverage and I would be providing my own liability coverage of 7.5 million through the modeling organization. They then issued a letter stating that I was covered for comprehensive for my model planes and incidentals.
If I had not done this they would not have covered any loss I might incure due to fire, theft etc.
Dennis
On further conversations with the insurance company it wasn’t the potential comprehensive loss that prompted this but the liability end. Most of this is due to the sensational reports in the media of the irresponsible behavior posted in the news media and social media. I provided my broker and the insurance company with copies of my liability coverage through my modeling organization showing liability coverage. I also provided a letter witnessed by my broker and notary that I was only interested in comprehensive coverage and I would be providing my own liability coverage of 7.5 million through the modeling organization. They then issued a letter stating that I was covered for comprehensive for my model planes and incidentals.
If I had not done this they would not have covered any loss I might incure due to fire, theft etc.
Dennis
12-21-2014, 10:24 AM
#284
Y worry FAA won't get any thing together till 2017 anyway [h=1]The FAA's drone regulations won't be ready until at least 2017[/h] [h=2]A congressional hearing reveals reasons why the agency is so far behind
[/h]
Share on Facebook (212) Tweet (204) Share Share (6) Pin
Just a few weeks ago, we got hints of how restrictive the Federal Aviation Administration's forthcoming commercial drone rules might be. But those details apparently didn't mean the agency was any closer to completing those rules, as FAA official Peggy Gilligan told a congressional House panel today. "We all agree that the project is taking too long," she said.
The panel — run by the House's Transportation and Infrastructure Committee — was convened to address provisions of the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2012 specific to Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), or drones. Those provisions set forth a timeline for the FAA to integrate drone usage into the National Airspace System, and the agency has been falling behind. The panel featured testimony from Gilligan, the Department of Transportation's Assistant Inspector General for Aviation Audits Matthew Hampton, and Gerald Dillingham, the director of civil aviation for the Government Accountability Office, among others. Most notably, Dillingham testified that "the consensus of opinion is the integration of unmanned systems will likely slip from the mandated deadline until 2017 or even later."
"The consensus of opinion is the integration of unmanned systems will likely slip from the mandated deadline until 2017 or even later."
Gilligan went on to add that the FAA has "a balanced proposal that is currently under executive review." The problem is that these proposals generate public comments, which the agency needs to consider before it can issue final rules. Hampton spoke to those concerns in his testimony, saying that the agency is behind schedule on half of the act's remaining requirements.
The FAA will not be able to safely integrate UAS technology by September 2015
"Ultimately," Hampton said, "the FAA will not meet the act’s overarching goal to safely integrate UAS technology by September 2015." Hampton also testified that the reason the agency has fallen behind schedule is actually three-fold. "The agency also faces significant technological, regulatory, and management challenges," he said.
The technological problems he mentioned involve lost-link scenarios (when an operator loses connectivity with the aircraft) and establishing secure radio frequency spectrum for flight. These are things that the FAA, DoD, and NASA are working to solve, but according to Hampton "it remains unclear when the technology will be robust enough to support UAS operations." On the regulatory side, Hampton said that while the FAA has authorized limited UAS operations on a case-by-case basis, it's still not in a position to certify civil operations wholesale.
"The FAA has worked with a special advisory committee for more than nine years, but it has not yet reached consensus with stakeholders on minimum performance and design standards for UAS technology," Hampton testified. The management challenges he spoke about sounded equally dire:
It's been speculated that the agency would miss the September 2015 deadline for a while now, and the slow pace has caused pushback from companies looking to expand into commercial drone usage. The other day, Amazon threatened to move its drone research abroad if the FAA delayed any further. Committee member Frank LoBiondo, the Republican Congressman for New Jersey's second district, directly addressed that issue during the committee hearing:
full document found here...
http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/10/7...-at-least-2017
[/h]
- By Sean O'Kane
- on December 10, 2014 01:12 pm
- @sokane1
Share on Facebook (212) Tweet (204) Share Share (6) Pin
Just a few weeks ago, we got hints of how restrictive the Federal Aviation Administration's forthcoming commercial drone rules might be. But those details apparently didn't mean the agency was any closer to completing those rules, as FAA official Peggy Gilligan told a congressional House panel today. "We all agree that the project is taking too long," she said.
The panel — run by the House's Transportation and Infrastructure Committee — was convened to address provisions of the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2012 specific to Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), or drones. Those provisions set forth a timeline for the FAA to integrate drone usage into the National Airspace System, and the agency has been falling behind. The panel featured testimony from Gilligan, the Department of Transportation's Assistant Inspector General for Aviation Audits Matthew Hampton, and Gerald Dillingham, the director of civil aviation for the Government Accountability Office, among others. Most notably, Dillingham testified that "the consensus of opinion is the integration of unmanned systems will likely slip from the mandated deadline until 2017 or even later."
"The consensus of opinion is the integration of unmanned systems will likely slip from the mandated deadline until 2017 or even later."
Gilligan went on to add that the FAA has "a balanced proposal that is currently under executive review." The problem is that these proposals generate public comments, which the agency needs to consider before it can issue final rules. Hampton spoke to those concerns in his testimony, saying that the agency is behind schedule on half of the act's remaining requirements.
The FAA will not be able to safely integrate UAS technology by September 2015
"Ultimately," Hampton said, "the FAA will not meet the act’s overarching goal to safely integrate UAS technology by September 2015." Hampton also testified that the reason the agency has fallen behind schedule is actually three-fold. "The agency also faces significant technological, regulatory, and management challenges," he said.
The technological problems he mentioned involve lost-link scenarios (when an operator loses connectivity with the aircraft) and establishing secure radio frequency spectrum for flight. These are things that the FAA, DoD, and NASA are working to solve, but according to Hampton "it remains unclear when the technology will be robust enough to support UAS operations." On the regulatory side, Hampton said that while the FAA has authorized limited UAS operations on a case-by-case basis, it's still not in a position to certify civil operations wholesale.
"The FAA has worked with a special advisory committee for more than nine years, but it has not yet reached consensus with stakeholders on minimum performance and design standards for UAS technology," Hampton testified. The management challenges he spoke about sounded equally dire:
The FAA lacks the training, tools, and procedures air traffic controllers need to manage UAS operations. The FAA also lacks standard databases to collect and analyze safety data from current US operators, and the severity-based classification for incident reporting.
Dillingham furthered this point in his testimony. Even though the FAA has used the establishment of UAS test sites as one of the signs that some progress is being made, Dillingham testified that there are major systemic problems at hand. According to him, "the test site operators told us that they were significantly under-utilized by the FAA and the private sector, and that they were unclear as to what research and development and operational data was needed by the FAA to support the integration initiatives." On top of that, there is legislation that restricts what data the FAA can task the test sites for — another thing that has hampered progress.It's been speculated that the agency would miss the September 2015 deadline for a while now, and the slow pace has caused pushback from companies looking to expand into commercial drone usage. The other day, Amazon threatened to move its drone research abroad if the FAA delayed any further. Committee member Frank LoBiondo, the Republican Congressman for New Jersey's second district, directly addressed that issue during the committee hearing:
It also concerns me when I read in The Wall Street Journal about major US companies taking their UAS research and development activities to foreign countries, such as Canada and Australia, because FAA regulations are too burdensome and too slow. It also concerns me that the road builders in Germany and farmers in France today are enjoying economic benefits from UAS because safety regulators there have found ways to permit such flights. I can't help but wonder that if the Germans, the French, and the Canadians do some of these things today, then why can't we also be doing them? Are they smarter than us? I don't think so. Are they better than us? I don't think so.
Even though it looks like the FAA is going to continue to miss deadlines, the agency is still working to get rules in place for commercial drone usage by opening its proposal to public comment (if and when it gets approved). In the meantime, the agency will still have to approve commercial usage on a slow, case-by-case basis — something it continued to do this afternoon when it announced four new companies that are allowed to fly commerciallfull document found here...
http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/10/7...-at-least-2017
12-21-2014, 11:21 AM
#286
That's their choice of course. They were so busy laughing and rolling eyes at suggestions like this that they were caught flat footed by the first FAA notice of proposed rule making. Unfortunately, the FAA is filled with folks who think like me (many of them went to the same schools & have same experiences as I do). So the AMA can laugh and roll eyes all they want...we'll see how that works out.
12-21-2014, 11:56 AM
#287
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-21-2014, 12:36 PM
#288
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by franklin_m 
Unfortunately, the FAA is filled with folks who think like me (many of them went to the same schools & have same experiences as I do).
You guys are hilarious... glad to see franklin_m has a sense of humor. Had me wondering for a while.
12-21-2014, 01:54 PM
#289
Originally Posted by franklin_m Unfortunately, the FAA is filled with folks who think like me (many of them went to the same schools & have same experiences as I do).
You guys are hilarious... glad to see franklin_m has a sense of humor. Had me wondering for a while.
12-21-2014, 02:06 PM
#290
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, I'm in favor of the FAA stepping in to regulate, as the industry writ large has demonstrated that it's unable to self-regulate. Whether those perpetrating careless operations are AMA members or not, by pushing for 336, AMA injected itself as the face of the non-commercial operations. Unfortunately, the AMA is able to influence only some of the non-commercial fliers - and even then endorsed some activities (FPV for example) that I think the FAA / NTSB rightly views as dangerous. Thus, with AMA unable to influence non-AMA members to follow a code, and with the manufacturers unwilling to provide technical controls, the hobby fliers are in a tough spot. In some ways, we're all going to take the fall in a manner of speaking for the actions of a reckless few. Again, absence of ability to self regulate activities that clearly present a danger to the traveling public is ample reason for FAA regulators to step in -- and they should. I support FAA regulation: nothing over 400', nothing over 55lbs, no FPV, no autonomous, LOS only, nothing in or under class C or B, within five miles of class D or other airports requires notification during periods of operation, and no compensation in any form for hobby flights.
12-21-2014, 02:15 PM
#291
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-21-2014, 02:25 PM
#293
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan,
IN
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, I'm in favor of the FAA stepping in to regulate, as the industry writ large has demonstrated that it's unable to self-regulate. Whether those perpetrating careless operations are AMA members or not, by pushing for 336, AMA injected itself as the face of the non-commercial operations. Unfortunately, the AMA is able to influence only some of the non-commercial fliers - and even then endorsed some activities (FPV for example) that I think the FAA / NTSB rightly views as dangerous. Thus, with AMA unable to influence non-AMA members to follow a code, and with the manufacturers unwilling to provide technical controls, the hobby fliers are in a tough spot. In some ways, we're all going to take the fall in a manner of speaking for the actions of a reckless few. Again, absence of ability to self regulate activities that clearly present a danger to the traveling public is ample reason for FAA regulators to step in -- and they should. I support FAA regulation: nothing over 400', nothing over 55lbs, no FPV, no autonomous, LOS only, nothing in or under class C or B, within five miles of class D or other airports requires notification during periods of operation, and no compensation in any form for hobby flights.
crash reporting scheme and the above nonsense
and go right to pilot certification, certified toy plane builders
and mechanics, regular toy plane inspections, medical
checks and toy plane control towers,
while you're at it?
Then, hundreds upon hundreds of folks across the nation
could enjoy you're exclusive little hobby.
12-21-2014, 02:47 PM
#294
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, gee, why stop with the ridiculous
crash reporting scheme and the above nonsense
and go right to pilot certification, certified toy plane builders
and mechanics, regular toy plane inspections, medical
checks and toy plane control towers,
while you're at it?
Then, hundreds upon hundreds of folks across the nation
could enjoy you're exclusive little hobby.
crash reporting scheme and the above nonsense
and go right to pilot certification, certified toy plane builders
and mechanics, regular toy plane inspections, medical
checks and toy plane control towers,
while you're at it?
Then, hundreds upon hundreds of folks across the nation
could enjoy you're exclusive little hobby.
12-21-2014, 02:57 PM
#295
Well, gee, why stop with the ridiculous
crash reporting scheme and the above nonsense
and go right to pilot certification, certified toy plane builders
and mechanics, regular toy plane inspections, medical
checks and toy plane control towers,
while you're at it?
Then, hundreds upon hundreds of folks across the nation
could enjoy you're exclusive little hobby.
crash reporting scheme and the above nonsense
and go right to pilot certification, certified toy plane builders
and mechanics, regular toy plane inspections, medical
checks and toy plane control towers,
while you're at it?
Then, hundreds upon hundreds of folks across the nation
could enjoy you're exclusive little hobby.
Last edited by franklin_m; 12-21-2014 at 03:02 PM.
12-21-2014, 03:16 PM
#296
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
franklin_m you continue to only refer to clubs, how do you expect the majority of AMA members that do not belong to a club to fit into your crash reporting nonsense?
Oh gee I broke off the landing gear on my slow stick, I need to send in a report to the AMA, and yesterday my buddy got a boo boo on his finger from a prop strike but did not send in a report, I hope the AMA/FAA don't arrest him!
And yes 804 you got it figured out ....................... never an end of bureaucrats trying to find way to increase their power over the citizenry.
Oh gee I broke off the landing gear on my slow stick, I need to send in a report to the AMA, and yesterday my buddy got a boo boo on his finger from a prop strike but did not send in a report, I hope the AMA/FAA don't arrest him!
And yes 804 you got it figured out ....................... never an end of bureaucrats trying to find way to increase their power over the citizenry.
12-21-2014, 03:31 PM
#297
franklin_m you continue to only refer to clubs, how do you expect the majority of AMA members that do not belong to a club to fit into your crash reporting nonsense?
Oh gee I broke off the landing gear on my slow stick, I need to send in a report to the AMA, and yesterday my buddy got a boo boo on his finger from a prop strike but did not send in a report, I hope the AMA/FAA don't arrest him!
And yes 804 you got it figured out ....................... never an end of bureaucrats trying to find way to increase their power over the citizenry.
Oh gee I broke off the landing gear on my slow stick, I need to send in a report to the AMA, and yesterday my buddy got a boo boo on his finger from a prop strike but did not send in a report, I hope the AMA/FAA don't arrest him!
And yes 804 you got it figured out ....................... never an end of bureaucrats trying to find way to increase their power over the citizenry.
Build a culture of reporting. If we're as safe as we say we are, then there's nothing to fear. On the other hand, if we're fearful of reporting, perhaps we're not as good as we've said we are.
Last edited by franklin_m; 12-21-2014 at 03:37 PM.
12-21-2014, 03:41 PM
#298
O!, just cought my exacto between my legs working on my rc nutcracker, aside from that and the mind altering ideas that abound ,I wish everyone and their familys the BEST! this holiday,and have a HAPPY! new year.
12-21-2014, 03:42 PM
#299
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the AMA could hire the guys that did the Obamacare portal to build that. Just a few hundred million dollars. Now just how well is the FAA doing with their Nextgen system ? Say two billion and counting.
12-21-2014, 03:49 PM
#300
So what others have advocated....how's what we're doing working out so far? Let's see, FAA took 336 and STILL published proposed rules that completely caught AMA by surprise. Oh, and 336 didn't even slow down the NTSB ruling. And oh yes, reports of reckless drone operation continue to make national major media, while positive AMA stories do not - despite the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollar spent on PR firms. I maintain that emotional hyperbole does nothing. What is effective is hard data, and either AMA figures out a way to provide hard data of their own, that's credible, or they'll be at the mercy of the hard data the FAA is already accumulating.