Duncman

I guess I missed that, been pretty busy with club business, anyway, that is what I meant. The person that tries to pin down something every time ends up chasing is tail. One of my past hats was as an estimator, most directors understand it is an "about" and move forward and get a lot accomplished. Every so often one comes along that wants precise numbers, not only does that encumber the estimation process but that individual pontificates every last penny, pretty soon the system is dysfunctional. It's all a shot in the dark until the final bill comes in.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

That's the difference between knowledge and experience. Some prefer to fixate on the smallest details while never seeing the big picture.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

You DO realize that this is Porcia and Crispy's MO, right? They pick nits in order to have an intelligent discussion about the FACTS and topics at hand!

Spin and deflection, spin and deflection.

Astro

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Might be helpful if you read the entire thread to see which side brought up the whole issue about "ABOUT".... Just trying to spare you the embarrassment.

rcmiket

Now there are "sides" isn't that wonderful.
What were at war?
Another thread down the tubes.
Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

If it's down the tubes, why are you still here and still posting? Try adding something of value to the thread perhaps

Review this and feel free to comment:

http://transportation.house.gov/cale...EventID=399335

The speakers:

Witness List:
Michael G. Whitaker, Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration | Written Testimony
James Hubbard, Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry, United States Forest Service | Written Testimony
Captain Tim Canoll, President, Air Line Pilots Association | Written Testimony
Rich Hanson, Director of Government and Regulatory Affairs, Academy of Model Aeronautics | Written Testimony
Dr. Mykel Kochenderfer, Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics | Written Testimony


Yes, that's your AMA dollars at work there, for better or worse. Skip ahead to 54 minute mark, 1:27, 1:35, and 2:00, or get some nodoze and watch the whole thing.

A pretty typical hearing, absent some of the fire and brimstone of other hot button topics. Still some political theater present though. Not to hard to figure out what side the people who are asking the questions fall into. Yes, they have sides too, for a myriad of reasons.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Thanks for sharing, I plan to watch the whole thing as soon as I get a chance (and some nodoze).

rcmiket

"A drone crashed and exploded into flames this week on a quiet Hamptons street.
Photographer Paul Callahan told the Sag Harbor Express he was hired to use the drone to take pictures of nearby condos when he lost control of the device."

http://nypost.com/2015/10/08/drone-b...mptons-street/

This is the type of thing that concerns me. "Exploded" is a rather ridiculous term though.
Mike

rcmiket

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/A...WT.mc_sect=tts

In a nutshell, here ya go.

Mike

islandflyer

I read the "prepared statement" made by Richard Hansen" in front of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee: He made a good case for the safety record of model aviation for the entire 78 years of AMA's history.
However, her failed (as expected) to make any attempt at all to differentiate between model aviation and drones.

He also made a ridiculous argument here:
"While the FAA’s press release and subsequent news coverage of the drone data focus on pilot reports and airliners, we have identified at least 26 records of drones flying near stadium events, wildfires, critical infrastructure and in restricted airspace. While these are potentially objectionable if unauthorized, they are certainly not “close calls” when no other aircraft is reported in the area

This keen to saying to the police: "of the 26 occurrences where someone was driving well above the speed limit is a school zone, while it is potentially unsafe, none resulted in an accident"

You cannot expect a sympathetic audience with that kind of statement.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Even Rich Hanson referred to, "traditional" modeling and differentiated between the, "new" user who is all about the technology. At least that is a start!

Another thing I found interesting is that only 1 out of the 5 (besides Rich Hanson's) written testimonies even mention or refer to the AMA or a CBO.

Astro

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

I suspect he used the term "potentially" and "if unauthorized" because he doesn't have all the facts in all 26 cases.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

And yet there he was, sitting before congress representing the AMA, along with other significant stakeholders in this pretty complex situation. So if not him and the AMA, who would have been up there on our behalf. The AMA's inclusion of MR and FPV didn't cause this issue to come to a head, so it's safe to say if they buried their head in the sand on the issue there would have been nobody up there at all. And decisions could be made that would have adverse consequences to the hobby. How did the AMA make it to the hearing and not the AOPA?

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Just to add to Mr. porcia83's excellent comments above. Mr. Hanson was there because he aspired to that position in the AMA. Those interested in seeking leadership positions in the AMA that have direct impact on the future of our hobby should seek out those positions as well.

Today's career advice tip: Posting on a public Internet forum is highly unlikely to qualify you for a leadership position in the AMA.

rcmiket

Ya never know. Down the road it may just be a plus.

Mike

Duncman

That is a pretty good summation and you are on point.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Even a clock is right twice a day.

Tom Nied

Head explosion.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

You always seem to have a way of spinning what I say into some kind of negative bash on the AMA. My words were pretty clear. I made a statement, I did NOT throw anybody under the bus.

I would like to be able to exchange ideas and opinions without all the back-and-forth that we have witnessed in a couple of these threads, so please don't take my next comments as an attack, rather as pointing out how you have contributed to threads becoming derailed in the past.

This statement essentially accuses me of saying that Rich Hansen and the AMA should not have been at the hearing. I NEVER said that, nor did I even HINT at that. You know that it is my belief that they absolutely SHOULD be involved in any and all hearings that have any bearing on our hobby.

Another flawed logic statement meant to make it look like I(or someone else) had blamed the AMA for the problems we face. I have not read where it is anybody's claim that it is the AMA's fault for all of this, just that some disagree with the stance they are taking. Pretty simple, really. No AMA hate going on.

Again, here is a statement meant to deflect and infer that someone has said that the AMA should not have been at the hearings at all. I have not seen where anyone on here has alluded that the AMA should not be involved at these hearings, or that they should bury their head in the sand.

More deflection and false assumptions. Your question leads the reader to assume the AOPA (an organization that was not previously mentioned in this discussion, nor is the topic of this discussion. How did they even enter this discussion?) is "bad" or irresponsible for not being present at the hearings, and the AMA is "good" for being there. Once again, for clarity's sake, I will point out that not a single person here has questioned the level of involvement of the AMA in this issue, but only the stance they are/have/seem to be taking in the matter.

I want to be able to have beneficial discussions on these forums. I feel that my opinions and experience are just as valid and relevant as the next. However, I will not allow others to "spin" and "deflect" my words into something they are not. By all means, if you disagree with me or my opinion, say so, I am good with that. If I make a statement that is not factual, I implore you to correct me (with proper facts and evidence, of course). DO NOT take your liberties with my words and spin them into something they are not. If you are unclear what I have said, or what my position is, please ask for my clarification.

In order for all to be able to have productive discussions on these forums, I have provided a link to a page that describes some common spin and deflection debate tactics that we all should avoid when communicating here to help avoid undue bickering and thread derailments.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

Regards,

Astro

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Well said!

rcmiket

Lets let these guys deal with the drone issue.
http://www.uavsa.org/
: http://dronepilotsassociation.com/.

Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Sure...they seem active, looks like they did something over a year ago. Do they seem like an organization you want working on behalf of the hobby? Anything more recent from them? Any programs with the FAA, any testimony before congress? How old is this organization...membership numbers...etc etc etc. They appear to be a more recent entity with a pretty narrow focus.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Well thanks! Brevity is in short supply it appears....sometimes less is soo much more.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Quoting and replying to your same post twice is Brevity? LOL!!!

Astro