Are you ready to register your aircraft?
11-23-2015, 01:49 PM
#1751
I am constantly amazed (or amused) at your consistant faluure to read the whol thing. Your question was answered on the very first page.
11-23-2015, 02:02 PM
#1752
There may be 1 million "drones" sold this year, but how many are really going to cause any kind of a true safety issue. Probably not many. And how many of those will be registered? Probably not many. If being part of the AMA means I am "registered" I am fine with that. I just won't go out and do an additional registration. I already have my info on all my aircraft, including my fpv foam glider that I fly non-los. Not sure what additional registration will get them in my case. I wish they would provide a "legal" way to fly non-los. I would be all over that!!
11-23-2015, 02:04 PM
#1753
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
11-23-2015, 02:06 PM
#1754
That doesn't fit in with the AMA's usual democratic approach to most things that involve a club's ability to
decide for themselves how they want to operate.
11-23-2015, 02:15 PM
#1755
11-23-2015, 02:18 PM
#1756
Nothing new, it's always been the case. All members of an AMA chartered club must be an AMA member.
11-23-2015, 02:19 PM
#1757
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Obviously I was joking about the "like...totally". As for the rest of it....well, it's a mixed bag. I do think I said earlier that it wouldn't be to everyone's liking (not a hard guess tough really). I was hoping to see a specific exclusion for fixed wing, but that doesn't look to be in there. The good news though is that I think I was correct in noting that we weren't going to have to register every plane we have. As someone else mentioned, the focus seemed to shift on injuries to pedestrians. I completely glossed over all the Einstein level math, I was getting dizzy. Would have thought that the emphasis was on aircraft collision. Perhaps at the end of the day they didn't see that as big of a thread or concern as was previously noted? Don't know. At the end of the day, no big seismic shift in the way our hobby will operate from what I can see. No big changes for club functions, or how you or I will continue to fly and do what we've always done, being safe and having fun. As for the AMAs role or participation in this document, can't say at this point. Doesn't look like they discussed who said and who did what. I trust that the organization that has advocated for this hobby for 70 plus years did everything they could to drive the best outcome for us. We'll have to wait to see if and when they issue a press release to explain what went down. And as you note, we're getting closer to seeing the final outcome in the next month or two...but probably no later than Dec.
11-23-2015, 02:21 PM
#1758
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Maybe the same place you came up with they were only going to register multi rotors. I don't think we (the AMA ) had much of a input either,
I just read read Dave's response to the recommendations. Would have been nice to get that across to the members of the committee. I'm sure it will show up in your mailbox soon but if you can;t wait it's on the AMA site.
This whole thing stinks. Plan B might not have worked either but Plan A never had a chance.
Mike
I just read read Dave's response to the recommendations. Would have been nice to get that across to the members of the committee. I'm sure it will show up in your mailbox soon but if you can;t wait it's on the AMA site.
This whole thing stinks. Plan B might not have worked either but Plan A never had a chance.
Mike
11-23-2015, 02:24 PM
#1759
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wheter or not legal or ethical, they do mandate that club members have it as a condition of providing insurance to the club and landowner. It can be overridden if a landowning public entity won't allow exclusion of public (those among them that don't belong to AMA), but you can bet the farm that isn't part of the pitch to the landowning entity made to secure use of the property as a model airplane flying site.
11-23-2015, 02:33 PM
#1760
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-23-2015, 02:39 PM
#1762
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been waiting for ya! Obviously I was joking about the "like...totally". As for the rest of it....well, it's a mixed bag. I do think I said earlier that it wouldn't be to everyone's liking (not a hard guess tough really). I was hoping to see a specific exclusion for fixed wing, but that doesn't look to be in there. The good news though is that I think I was correct in noting that we weren't going to have to register every plane we have. As someone else mentioned, the focus seemed to shift on injuries to pedestrians. I completely glossed over all the Einstein level math, I was getting dizzy. Would have thought that the emphasis was on aircraft collision. Perhaps at the end of the day they didn't see that as big of a thread or concern as was previously noted? Don't know.
At the end of the day, no big seismic shift in the way our hobby will operate from what I can see. No big changes for club functions, or how you or I will continue to fly and do what we've always done, being safe and having fun. As for the AMAs role or participation in this document, can't say at this point. Doesn't look like they discussed who said and who did what. I trust that the organization that has advocated for this hobby for 70 plus years did everything they could to drive the best outcome for us. We'll have to wait to see if and when they issue a press release to explain what went down. And as you note, we're getting closer to seeing the final outcome in the next month or two...but probably no later than Dec.
Obviously I was joking about the "like...totally". As for the rest of it....well, it's a mixed bag. I do think I said earlier that it wouldn't be to everyone's liking (not a hard guess tough really). I was hoping to see a specific exclusion for fixed wing, but that doesn't look to be in there. The good news though is that I think I was correct in noting that we weren't going to have to register every plane we have. As someone else mentioned, the focus seemed to shift on injuries to pedestrians. I completely glossed over all the Einstein level math, I was getting dizzy. Would have thought that the emphasis was on aircraft collision. Perhaps at the end of the day they didn't see that as big of a thread or concern as was previously noted? Don't know. At the end of the day, no big seismic shift in the way our hobby will operate from what I can see. No big changes for club functions, or how you or I will continue to fly and do what we've always done, being safe and having fun. As for the AMAs role or participation in this document, can't say at this point. Doesn't look like they discussed who said and who did what. I trust that the organization that has advocated for this hobby for 70 plus years did everything they could to drive the best outcome for us. We'll have to wait to see if and when they issue a press release to explain what went down. And as you note, we're getting closer to seeing the final outcome in the next month or two...but probably no later than Dec.
Mike. .
11-23-2015, 02:41 PM
#1763
Wheter or not legal or ethical, they do mandate that club members have it as a condition of providing insurance to the club and landowner. It can be overridden if a landowning public entity won't allow exclusion of public (those among them that don't belong to AMA), but you can bet the farm that isn't part of the pitch to the landowning entity made to secure use of the property as a model airplane flying site.
Since no club has a God given right to belong to the AMA, I don't see why the AMA should not be able to make their own set of rules for clubs and individuals to either "Take it or Leave it".
Freedom of Association works both ways.
11-23-2015, 02:45 PM
#1764
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike.
11-23-2015, 02:46 PM
#1765
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Wha? How did we lose...because we have to spend 5 minutes logging into a website and registering, then putting a number in a plane? What is the big loss here? Do you think it might have been far worse than what we are seeing here now? It's not everything everyone hoped it would be...but it really ain't that bad, imo. I've asked before we knew mostly what it was going to be and now that we see what will probably be...does this change the hobby for you? Will it change drastically how your club operates, or restrict or hamper you from continuing the enjoy the hobby? It won't for me so far.
11-23-2015, 02:49 PM
#1766
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
? I'll have to go over that 18 page form again, I didn't see that it required each of our airframes (or any one) to be registered. If your argument is about govt control, it is what it is. I'm not fired up about that. Got lots of things that have to be registered, I'm more ticked at the taxes I have to pay for the stuff. And gas is STILL over $2.00 a gallon.
11-23-2015, 02:50 PM
#1767
11-23-2015, 02:52 PM
#1768
11-23-2015, 02:52 PM
#1769
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-23-2015, 02:54 PM
#1771
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: , CA
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-23-2015, 02:58 PM
#1772
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
If you want to argue we dind't get our money's worth, fair enough that's your opinion. I don't know how that can be qualified in any way, since what we see here is far from worst case scenario.
11-23-2015, 03:01 PM
#1774
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that figure is much better than the one million dollars some people like to throw out there. Even if it was 250k, you presume that this money was soley to fight or prevent erreoneous gov regs", and that it was lost. Is it possible for you to look at it in any other way than a loss? Could be be the money spent was not soley for that goal, or even it it was, perhaps this was the best case outcome? There is no guarantee, nor was there, on how this would turn out regardless of the size of the wallet. We could be reading here today that every aircraft we own must be registered, individually, with a per model fee...etc etc etc.
If you want to argue we dind't get our money's worth, fair enough that's your opinion. I don't know how that can be qualified in any way, since what we see here is far from worst case scenario.
If you want to argue we dind't get our money's worth, fair enough that's your opinion. I don't know how that can be qualified in any way, since what we see here is far from worst case scenario.
Mike
11-23-2015, 03:12 PM
#1775
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt it. I think there is a good possibility, but the answer would have to come from a civil court, and the cost of asking the question in that venue is prohibitively high. SFA asked that among other things, and actually got a default judgement after AMA's insurance company decided to cut losses by settling rather than continuing to pay for what was essentially a pissing contest in the courthouse. Ultimately AMA, with a much bigger bankroll, sued them and and they folded under the litigation cost.