Are you ready to register your aircraft?
11-08-2015, 12:00 PM
#1053
Ok, if it makes you happy, add : "Based on the available data..." in front of the comment. I still contend that I find it hard to believe that all but one of them all chose the same method to respond.
Sorry if you don't like my assessment of your analysis, but I call it like I see it. I just exported all 1,213 comments available as part of the export feature. However, looking at the docket home page (http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketD...=FAA-2015-4378) it indicates 4,346 comments have been received. Now, obviously that still doesn't contain the comments that were not submitted on-line, but 1,213 is still a small percentage of the total displayed.
But if you want to believe that and continue to shill for AMA, then that's fine by me.
A shill for the AMA? Nice try. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm a dues paying AMA member like many others. I'm just one who also realizes the complexity of the day-to-day challenges the AMA is facing.
Sorry if you don't like my assessment of your analysis, but I call it like I see it. I just exported all 1,213 comments available as part of the export feature. However, looking at the docket home page (http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketD...=FAA-2015-4378) it indicates 4,346 comments have been received. Now, obviously that still doesn't contain the comments that were not submitted on-line, but 1,213 is still a small percentage of the total displayed.
But if you want to believe that and continue to shill for AMA, then that's fine by me.
A shill for the AMA? Nice try. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm a dues paying AMA member like many others. I'm just one who also realizes the complexity of the day-to-day challenges the AMA is facing.
11-08-2015, 12:34 PM
#1054
The AMA wouldn't have these "complex challenges" had they taken a conservative course years ago.
They created this predicament.
There should be no question as to what differentiates how we [traditional RCers] fly as opposed to what constitutes DRONE ACTIVITY.
Evidently, that clear cut line was never established, but it could have been.
It SHOULD have been.
They are their own worst enemy.
They created this predicament.
There should be no question as to what differentiates how we [traditional RCers] fly as opposed to what constitutes DRONE ACTIVITY.
Evidently, that clear cut line was never established, but it could have been.
It SHOULD have been.
They are their own worst enemy.
11-08-2015, 04:18 PM
#1055
The AMA wouldn't have these "complex challenges" had they taken a conservative course years ago.
They created this predicament.
There should be no question as to what differentiates how we [traditional RCers] fly as opposed to what constitutes DRONE ACTIVITY.
Evidently, that clear cut line was never established, but it could have been.
It SHOULD have been.
They are their own worst enemy.
They created this predicament.
There should be no question as to what differentiates how we [traditional RCers] fly as opposed to what constitutes DRONE ACTIVITY.
Evidently, that clear cut line was never established, but it could have been.
It SHOULD have been.
They are their own worst enemy.
11-08-2015, 04:29 PM
#1056
That's all you've got, the same refrain of "If you think you can do better, then go show them how it's done".
The AMA had ONE job to do from the very beginning and that was to at least make it clear to the federal bureaucrats that what we fly are NOT DRONES in any way, shape or form.
Instead, the AMA felt the overpowering need to embrace drone flight and the rest is history.
Don't you try to tell me what they could not do, because THEY DID NOT EVEN TRY.
The AMA had ONE job to do from the very beginning and that was to at least make it clear to the federal bureaucrats that what we fly are NOT DRONES in any way, shape or form.
Instead, the AMA felt the overpowering need to embrace drone flight and the rest is history.
Don't you try to tell me what they could not do, because THEY DID NOT EVEN TRY.
11-08-2015, 04:47 PM
#1057
Hi Mike , The very simple answer is this ;
When flying LOS , you can see a 360 degree view around the model at all times . You can clearly see whats in front of it , behind it , above it , below it , and to a degree at the edges of your vision , what's closing in on it , all at the same time . That I'm aware of , there is no view through a pair of hobby grade FPV goggles that can come close to the amount of "see ability" offered by LOS . Can you honestly tell me that you can see everything in front , behind , above , and below , and include things like other FPV craft that may be closing in on you at the same time with hobby grade FPV equipment ? And that this limited view somehow offers GREATER safety than LOS ?
There is no one , no way , that is ever gonna put their name to the idea that FPV is safer than LOS , in the hobby world we inhabit .......
Hey Init and Lamo,
I was not trying to insinuate the non-los FPV flight is safer than los flight or that the fpv equipment gives a better visual than LOS. What I was asking is what makes non-los so inherently dangerous if done in a responsible, safe manner? I personally do not fly non-los over or close to anyone, property, towns, villages, cities. What is so dangerous about a failed non-los flight that glides down into a forest? Not sure if the "God" like pilots remark was directed at me or not, but I never said I was immune to flight failure, dumb thumbs, etc.
I was not trying to insinuate the non-los FPV flight is safer than los flight or that the fpv equipment gives a better visual than LOS. What I was asking is what makes non-los so inherently dangerous if done in a responsible, safe manner? I personally do not fly non-los over or close to anyone, property, towns, villages, cities. What is so dangerous about a failed non-los flight that glides down into a forest? Not sure if the "God" like pilots remark was directed at me or not, but I never said I was immune to flight failure, dumb thumbs, etc.
Hi Mike , In my answer to your question , I put fourth the fact that a better view of the aircraft is afforded by LOS flight , that right there IS the answer to it . And if you add that according to the AMA there is no safe way to do FPV without at least a spotter having LOS of the aircraft in question , you can plainly see that non LOS is inherently more dangerous due to that limited view . I understand and applaud your reasonableness and responsibility for not flying non LOS "over or close to anyone , property , towns , villages , cities" but the fact remains that beyond LOS FPV is not an AMA condoned mode of flight and it sometimes only takes the breaking of one rule to have misfortune rise up and bite your backside . And then your not covered cause you flew outside of AMA doc. #550 . I will 100% agree that the odds are statistically tiny of an FPV flown over woods to do insurance claimable damage but where there is even a .00001% risk of incident while stepping outside the rules would be enough reason right there to cause me to not do it , and keep my aircraft in my sight at all times . Yea sure , my old guy circle flying ol warbird just may go out of control and take someone out before my very eyes , it's a risk with any remote controlled object . Thing is that if God forbid it ever does happen , it will have happened while I was following ALL of the AMA's flight directives to the letter , such that the insurance will have no choice other than to cover whatever damages are judged due to the crash .
PS , I'm glad you don't see my post as an attack on either you or FPV , cause I do believe AMA #550 condoned FPV would likely be a whole lot of fun . We do disagree about the beyond LOS thing , and that's ok with me , I just hope you ain't the one that has the oops that the news and political machine decides to make an example of . I do believe it is coming , that any day now were gonna hear news of a full scale with a hobbyist's drone planted in the windshield . A little foamy like you describe ? tiny tiny chance of any damage for sure . But some 5 or 10 pound quad through the windshield of some Cessna , and stuffs gonna get real ugly real quick .....
11-08-2015, 05:06 PM
#1058
That's all you've got, the same refrain of "If you think you can do better, then go show them how it's done".
The AMA had ONE job to do from the very beginning and that was to at least make it clear to the federal bureaucrats that what we fly are NOT DRONES in any way, shape or form.
Instead, the AMA felt the overpowering need to embrace drone flight and the rest is history.
Don't you try to tell me what they could not do, because THEY DID NOT EVEN TRY.
The AMA had ONE job to do from the very beginning and that was to at least make it clear to the federal bureaucrats that what we fly are NOT DRONES in any way, shape or form.
Instead, the AMA felt the overpowering need to embrace drone flight and the rest is history.
Don't you try to tell me what they could not do, because THEY DID NOT EVEN TRY.
11-08-2015, 05:52 PM
#1059
Originally Posted by mike1974 
Why do people get so hung up on LOS? Not picking on you HoundDog; just asking in general. What makes flying out of LOS so inherently dangerous?
Originally Posted by init4fun Hi Mike , The very simple answer is this ;
When flying LOS , you can see a 360 degree view around the model at all times . You can clearly see whats in front of it , behind it , above it , below it , and to a degree at the edges of your vision , what's closing in on it , all at the same time . That I'm aware of , there is no view through a pair of hobby grade FPV goggles that can come close to the amount of "see ability" offered by LOS . Can you honestly tell me that you can see everything in front , behind , above , and below , and include things like other FPV craft that may be closing in on you at the same time with hobby grade FPV equipment ? And that this limited view somehow offers GREATER safety than LOS ?
There is no one , no way , that is ever gonna put their name to the idea that FPV is safer than LOS , in the hobby world we inhabit .......
Originally Posted by mike1974 Hey Init and Lamo,
I was not trying to insinuate the non-los FPV flight is safer than los flight or that the fpv equipment gives a better visual than LOS. What I was asking is what makes non-los so inherently dangerous if done in a responsible, safe manner? I personally do not fly non-los over or close to anyone, property, towns, villages, cities. What is so dangerous about a failed non-los flight that glides down into a forest? Not sure if the "God" like pilots remark was directed at me or not, but I never said I was immune to flight failure, dumb thumbs, etc.
Hi Mike , Hi Mike , In my answer to your question , I put fourth the fact that a better view of the aircraft is afforded by LOS flight , that right there IS the answer to it . And if you add that according to the AMA there is no safe way to do FPV without at least a spotter having LOS of the aircraft in question , you can plainly see that non LOS is inherently more dangerous due to that limited view . I understand and applaud your reasonableness and responsibility for not flying non LOS "over or close to anyone , property , towns , villages , cities" but the fact remains that beyond LOS FPV is not an AMA condoned mode of flight and it sometimes only takes the breaking of one rule to have misfortune rise up and bite your backside . And then your not covered cause you flew outside of AMA doc. #550 . I will 100% agree that the odds are statistically tiny of an FPV flown over woods to do insurance claimable damage but where there is even a .00001% risk of incident while stepping outside the rules would be enough reason right there to cause me to not do it , and keep my aircraft in my sight at all times . Yea sure , my old guy circle flying ol warbird just may go out of control and take someone out before my very eyes , it's a risk with any remote controlled object . Thing is that if God forbid it ever does happen , it will have happened while I was following ALL of the AMA's flight directives to the letter , such that the insurance will have no choice other than to cover whatever damages are judged due to the crash .
PS , I'm glad you don't see my post as an attack on either you or FPV , cause I do believe AMA #550 condoned FPV would likely be a whole lot of fun . We do disagree about the beyond LOS thing , and that's ok with me , I just hope you ain't the one that has the oops that the news and political machine decides to make an example of . I do believe it is coming , that any day now were gonna hear news of a full scale with a hobbyist's drone planted in the windshield . A little foamy like you describe ? tiny tiny chance of any damage for sure . But some 5 or 10 pound quad through the windshield of some Cessna , and stuffs gonna get real ugly real quick .....
As far as flying with in 5 miles of an airport here in the USA, All Aircraft When transiting or entering the 5 mile radius, except for landing or take off should be at pattern altitude usually 800 to 1000' AGL until in a position where they can make a standard landing. If on an instrument approach they are allowed to fly lower than pattern altitude But all Instrument approaches are flown within 30 degrees left and or right of the runway center line.
11-08-2015, 06:24 PM
#1060
I'll try to remember that , the next time I'm flying in New Zealand ........But , here in the USA , under the auspices of the AMA , I'll stick with their belief about the proper way FPV is to be flown . Got an LOS spotter , not flying over folk's heads , and following the rest of the safety code , not just the parts you pick and choose to follow ? Great , your #550 compliant . Anything else (and yes , beyond LOS is "else") and your not . Once not AMA compliant , your no longer the problem of the AMA and are strictly on your own , liability wise . In all aspects of society there are rules , and there are always those who feel the rules shouldn't apply to them . If you feel SO strongly that model aircraft FPV operations beyond LOS are just the bee's knees and the whole world just gotta agree , well then go on and mount a crusade to get the LOS only restriction removed from #550 .
I'll bet you'll find FAR more resistance to that outside of the FPV world than you'd ever imagine ......
11-08-2015, 06:56 PM
#1061
I'll try to remember that , the next time I'm flying in New Zealand ........But , here in the USA , under the auspices of the AMA , I'll stick with their belief about the proper way FPV is to be flown . Got an LOS spotter , not flying over folk's heads , and following the rest of the safety code , not just the parts you pick and choose to follow ? Great , your #550 compliant . Anything else (and yes , beyond LOS is "else") and your not . Once not AMA compliant , your no longer the problem of the AMA and are strictly on your own , liability wise . In all aspects of society there are rules , and there are always those who feel the rules shouldn't apply to them . If you feel SO strongly that model aircraft FPV operations beyond LOS are just the bee's knees and the whole world just gotta agree , well then go on and mount a crusade to get the LOS only restriction removed from #550 .
I'll bet you'll find FAR more resistance to that outside of the FPV world than you'd ever imagine ......I am not advocating FPV beyond LOS or any thing against #550. Just there are places FPV beyond LOS can be done safely. Just as it's perfectly to drive at 220 mph on a circle track or 550+ MPH on a drag strip. Just as Full Scale are allowed to fly over Non congested areas at 500'AGl and over water as low as they can safely accomplish it.
11-08-2015, 07:50 PM
#1063
"Note: Agencies review all submissions, however some agencies may choose to redact, or withhold, certain submissions (or portions thereof) such as those containing .... duplicate/near duplicate examples of a mass-mail campaign."
Seems the method the AMA chose, the cut and paste method may well have met the standard for "duplicate" or "near duplicate" criteria.
I reiterate...I find it an incredible coincidence that every single one of the VPs chose not to comment on the public site choosing instead to send in their comment by mail. Furthermore, all but one of the AMA staff chose to do the same. That's simply amazing.
Or again, the explanation that requires much less twisted logic is that they didn't comment.
11-08-2015, 08:21 PM
#1065
"Note: Agencies review all submissions, however some agencies may choose to redact, or withhold, certain submissions (or portions thereof) such as those containing .... duplicate/near duplicate examples of a mass-mail campaign."
Seems the method the AMA chose, the cut and paste method may well have met the standard for "duplicate" or "near duplicate" criteria.
I reiterate...I find it an incredible coincidence that every single one of the VPs chose not to comment on the public site choosing instead to send in their comment by mail. Furthermore, all but one of the AMA staff chose to do the same. That's simply amazing.
Or again, the explanation that requires much less twisted logic is that they didn't comment.
Seems the method the AMA chose, the cut and paste method may well have met the standard for "duplicate" or "near duplicate" criteria.
I reiterate...I find it an incredible coincidence that every single one of the VPs chose not to comment on the public site choosing instead to send in their comment by mail. Furthermore, all but one of the AMA staff chose to do the same. That's simply amazing.
Or again, the explanation that requires much less twisted logic is that they didn't comment.
11-08-2015, 09:08 PM
#1066
Contrary to what some contend, I'm of the belief that flying in the NAS is a privilege rather than a right.
11-08-2015, 09:30 PM
#1067
Contrary to what some contend, I'm of the belief that flying in the NAS is a privilege rather than a right.
As governments usurp everything, under the guise of providing SAFETY for the masses, It soon becomes clear that even breathing public AIR is a privilege not a right. Next they will come for your first born. maybe that's a little far fetched, but certainly your first Quad or the like. That is if U fail to REGISTER it with the Gestapo.
Shush listen, Do I hear Black Helicopters on the roof? NAH couldn't be.
Knock Knock Knock. Who's there? Shut Up & Just come with us O'l Man.
Hey Max U grab the computer. I'll get his planes.
Shush listen, Do I hear Black Helicopters on the roof? NAH couldn't be.
Knock Knock Knock. Who's there? Shut Up & Just come with us O'l Man.
Hey Max U grab the computer. I'll get his planes.
11-09-2015, 04:47 AM
#1068
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's all you've got, the same refrain of "If you think you can do better, then go show them how it's done".
The AMA had ONE job to do from the very beginning and that was to at least make it clear to the federal bureaucrats that what we fly are NOT DRONES in any way, shape or form.
Instead, the AMA felt the overpowering need to embrace drone flight and the rest is history.
Don't you try to tell me what they could not do, because THEY DID NOT EVEN TRY.
The AMA had ONE job to do from the very beginning and that was to at least make it clear to the federal bureaucrats that what we fly are NOT DRONES in any way, shape or form.
Instead, the AMA felt the overpowering need to embrace drone flight and the rest is history.
Don't you try to tell me what they could not do, because THEY DID NOT EVEN TRY.
Mike
11-09-2015, 06:57 AM
#1069
Yeah, right. The AMA has zero control over the FAA and the tens of thousands of consumers purchasing and flying drones. There is no approach the AMA would have taken that would have prevented the FAA from doing what they're doing. Of course, you're eligible to run for AMA office at any time and re-write history.
Exactly why the 1 million was a total waste.
11-09-2015, 08:09 AM
#1070
11-09-2015, 08:39 AM
#1071
My Feedback: (13)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Johns Island,
SC
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mon, Nov 09, 2015
[h=1] UAV Registration Rule Proposals Leaked Following Meetings[/h][h=2]System Designed To Track Down Owners In Cases Of Possible Violation[/h]The FAA would require the registration of all UAVs weighing more than half a pound if it adopts recommendations crafted by the UAV Registration Task Force last week.
But the registration would be free, and could be conducted online, according to a report in the Washington Post.
According to what the paper described as "multiple members of the task force speaking on the condition of anonymity", the registration process would be done through Internet sites or mobile apps, including those of manufacturers. That the sources said, would not burden the retailers with registering a UAV at the point of sale.
So what information would be included in the registration? The owner's name and address, which would allow the FAA to find the owner of a UAV should it become separated from the owner. An email address would be voluntary to allow the FAA to send updates on UAV regulations to operators. The panel considered asking for social security numbers and dates of birth, but decided not to be that intrusive.
Once registered, a UAV would be required to display a registration number that is easily seen by the person operating the aircraft. No size or font for the registration number was specified.
The FAA is not required to adopt the proposed regulations, but it does have a deadline of November 20 imposed by Department of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx in an effort to beat an anticipated holiday rush on the aircraft.
[h=1] UAV Registration Rule Proposals Leaked Following Meetings[/h][h=2]System Designed To Track Down Owners In Cases Of Possible Violation[/h]The FAA would require the registration of all UAVs weighing more than half a pound if it adopts recommendations crafted by the UAV Registration Task Force last week.
According to what the paper described as "multiple members of the task force speaking on the condition of anonymity", the registration process would be done through Internet sites or mobile apps, including those of manufacturers. That the sources said, would not burden the retailers with registering a UAV at the point of sale.
So what information would be included in the registration? The owner's name and address, which would allow the FAA to find the owner of a UAV should it become separated from the owner. An email address would be voluntary to allow the FAA to send updates on UAV regulations to operators. The panel considered asking for social security numbers and dates of birth, but decided not to be that intrusive.
Once registered, a UAV would be required to display a registration number that is easily seen by the person operating the aircraft. No size or font for the registration number was specified.
The FAA is not required to adopt the proposed regulations, but it does have a deadline of November 20 imposed by Department of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx in an effort to beat an anticipated holiday rush on the aircraft.
11-09-2015, 09:14 AM
#1072
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, right. The AMA has zero control over the FAA and the tens of thousands of consumers purchasing and flying drones. There is no approach the AMA would have taken that would have prevented the FAA from doing what they're doing. Of course, you're eligible to run for AMA office at any time and re-write history.
So why spend money on something (by your own admission ) we ( the AMA ) can't change?
Mike
11-09-2015, 09:35 AM
#1073
Not going to register any model airplanes and not going to stop flying them. 