franklin_m

Why? I'll freely admit I wasn't there. But I am very familiar with the legislative process, having been a principal stakeholder in getting language into an appropriations bill. The language was drafted by the contractor, given to the staff, and after some email Q&A, incorporated verbatim. Sometimes staff edit, but not always. The reality is that Senators generally don't waste valuable staff time on minor issues like this. I suspect Inhofe and/or his staff knew that this language really wouldn't make a lot of difference (given the rest of the law's language about safety of NAS etc.), so it was a relatively easy and non-controversial issue for Inhofe. If anything the staff just examined it for any "show stoppers."

That said, I'm reasonably certain you were not there either, unless of course you're actually an agent of the AMA - which would make your presence here on the boards much more interesting.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

LoL...always a conspiracy or an attempt to divert from reality. I doubt anyone here was present when the language was being written. Based on your ability to read the tea leaves though, and your professed experience in crafting legislation, had you been there I'm sure the language would have been perfect in every way. As for being an "agent"..again lol, at last count there are 187,000 of them...everyone with an AMA number is one.

Sport_Pilot

We should consider that the definition was written years before this, I think in 2008 by a committee on sUAV recommendations. I cannot remember the name or the document that was written.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Just clarify then, the Senator is the one individual ultimately responsible for the language in the bill?

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

because i really do not think that anyone at the AMA would be forward thinking enough to add the escape clause to the non regulation of models part of the bill, i am guessing that it was the senator's staff that did it. the rest of the definition of a model aircraft part does look like something that the AMA submitted.

Granpooba

My Feedback: (5)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, what appears to be really sad is the thought that you do not think much of 80% of your club members.

What is even sadder is that you can not spell " sad ". Now that is said ! LOL

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Astro, is that you?

franklin_m

Concur. Nor does it appear that they thought of the whole implementation (i.e. implementing regulation) part either - given that the AMA almost immediately sued FAA for interpreting the language the AMA asked for. Speaking of the lawsuit, I wonder how much of our membership money is being spent on that?

franklin_m

Well, let me think about that. Given that Congressmen, Senators, and the President are voted into those jobs, and they either vote on the language in bills and/or sign it into law, I guess that makes the voters ultimately responsible for the language in that bill - or any bill for that matter.

franklin_m

I would have at least been able to think through unintended consequences - like implementation - which they clearly did not, as evidenced by the lawsuit against FAA implementation not long after the law passed.

franklin_m

I have an AMA number and I'm not, so that 186,999. Given the number of folks on here that don't agree with the AMA's stance on this issue, then that 187,000 number will drop even further.

Sport_Pilot

That's stretching it, a lot! I may not like the way this was phrased in the bill, but I may still vote for him or her because of much more important matters. So I believe it does stop with the Senator or Congressman.

rgburrill

Actually it does, even if after the fact. Taking a violator "off the street" so to speak prevents him from doing it again. Levying heavy fines and jail times willc cause potential violators to think twice and perhaps change their minds. After all, is flying near an airport to get pictures of jets landing really worth a heavy fine or jail time? In a previous post I mentioned GPS jammers getting caught. That activity certainly has not stopped but it has diminished. And that ultimately improved the safety of air travel a bit. When we are talking hundreds of lives in one accident even a bit of improvement helps.

Sport_Pilot

Won't work because no one will register and even if they did that does not protect the NAS because it would already have been violated.

rgburrill

The "regulation of models" came about because too many people were NOT following the simple rules put out by AMA. Don't blame the AMA or the FAA - it's strictly the fault of rogue fliers, some of whom have made themselves well known on these boards.

rgburrill

By your statement the FAA is useless because looking at an accident in order to reduce the chances of further accidents does no good because the accident already occured.

Sport_Pilot

Again I am talking about a legal argument. Not how the FAA will interpret. Something the AMA or other could use to argue in court. Not blaming the AMA or FAA but other registrations did noting. Registration of RC radios and CB radios for example. It did nothing, the violators still put amps on their radios, broadcast on illegal frequencies, etc. The FCC abandoned the registration, I assume, because it cost them money.

Sport_Pilot

That's not what I said. What I said it would do no good because the drone would not be registered. The people who do this will not register and the NAS will be violated. I should not have said already.

rcmiket

I'm inclined to agree voluntary is well, voluntary. The same bunch that didn't give a crap before will not give a crap now.

Mike

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

The reality of the situation (and we all know it) is that Voluntary Registration is not going to Work. Just like Guns only the legal guns get registered. If A Serial Number was added to the DRONE or whatever qualifies as a DRONE, by the manufacture, after this Friday,Then the Retail seller, By Computer, would fill out a form Containing the Serial Number, buyers Name, Address and phone number ect. just as gun dealers do today. No background check would be necessary. Then a registration number ("N" number if U please) would be issued by the FAA or whom ever is designated to keep the records.

U can't drive a car legally with out it registered, and mandatory registration, at the time of sale, Is the only thing that will work For Drones. Anything is just a useless waste of time and money. Then there is a whole nother "CAN of WORMS." Just who is going to enforce any Rules, Regs, or Laws Pertaining to the Flying of TOY Drones in the NAS. Will it be Federal, State, Locale or some combination that will have the authority and the resources to enforce the "TOY DRONE LAWS"?

Guess we'll MAYBE get the answer this Friday. But wouldn't put a lot of money on it.
Just a thought so what ever happens Happens. I'd rather see things left just as they are, but I think it's past the Point of no return. Te best thing is they let people flying on designated flying areas under AMA/CBO rules continue as always. Fat Chance.

rgburrill

I think I agree with everything you've said here. Voluntary won't work and I doubt it will be voluntary. Maybe what you meant to say was self registration won't work and I agree with that too. And it won't be just those who will not comply with the rules who don't register. Even the cost of a postage stamp keeps me from sending in a warranty card. To use your gun analogy when Connecticut required registration of all "assault rifles" well less that 10% of the estimated number of owners did so.

As far as enforcement is concerned no one has the money. IMHO it will strictly be on an after incident basis until technology is developed that can track them at a low cost.

Don't know that we will have an answer Friday. All that is supposed to be is a recommendation as to what should be registered. I don't see how they can even do that with such a diverse group of special interests. Furthermore, I still think they are going after the wrong "bad guy". It's not the UAVs that are the problem, it's FPV. And FPV is an FCC issue, not an FAA issue.

rcmiket

My understanding from a earlier article ( leaked from sources close to the committee) was that retailers would not be responsible for registration at the time of purchase. If so than voluntary registration would be the only way they could accomplish the registration.

From that article.

'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.'
Mike

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

If you could predict the future I suspect you'd have the winning lottery number. If you had the winning lottery numbers I doubt you'd be wasting your time posting here....

F-16 viperman

So please help Me out here, is there any person here that thinks it is a good idea for Me to be forced to register over 100 aircraft if I fly on My own acreage, My own runway out in the middle of the country where I'll never see a full scale except at 10000 feet or above? Ridiculous!

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

That's a pretty one off situation, certainly the exception not the rule. Regardless, what you suggest hasn't been proposed.