jonkoppisch

My Feedback: (162)

I wonder if Wilber and Orville would have thought it was a privilege or a right?

interesting in that there was a constitution and Bill of rights at the time they flew but no FAA.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Man I High lite the Important Parts.

Try not to use PRONOUNS.

CAPITALIZE.

Use complete sentences and Paragraphs.

Well Mostly!

Triple check spelling and content.

What next double spaced?

Does this HELP?

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

If I win the PowerBall tomorrow I'll buy you a spell checker, grammar checker, and style guide so you can confirm.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Hey Mr. Bacon ... I think pick'n on us O'l Geezers with the on set of Alzheimer's/Dementia (Now what the He[[ was I saying OH ya) just wait til you get Old, Decrepit and take a lot of Pills. Then U won't even worry about Numbers, Just when eie I take My pills or took a good crap.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Eat more bacon, you'll feel better. Here you go:

https://youtu.be/OtMVMNST_g4

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Great I spell so bad that some times this spell checker

just gives up and I have to attempt to get some dictionary

to try to figure it out. And They even gave me two

chances at 3rd grade with Sister Pius. That lady had a

darker mustache than most guys And the fastest 12"

reuler You.ve ever seen.



Better?

Sport_Pilot

Well actually there is no Constitution or Bill of Rights. The government ignores it and the people are ignorant of it.

N410DC

Congress and the FAA have always said that one must fly in accordance with the guidelines of a Community Based Organization, such as the AMA. However, the definition of a CBO is broad, and not necessarily exclusive to the AMA.

Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft:
This document implies that the AMA may not be the only organization that meets the requirements of a CBO. Of course, other CBOs may also be formed in the future. If this is the case, AMA membership will not be required; one could simply join another CBO. Some existing organizations (e.g. the multitude of drone associations that are forming) could meet the definition of CBO if they simply develop "...a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground." I am not familiar with any of the non-AMA organizations, but I would not be surprised if some of these organizations may already meet the requirements of the CBO.

As far as I am concerned, it's possible for a pilot to follow the safety guidelines of a CBO, even if he/she is not a member. The AMA, for example, does not require AMA membership it its safety code. As long as one follows the safety code from the AMA (or some other CBO,) he/she is flying in compliance with an established set of "community guidelines." That said, turbine pilots, and those who fly 55+ lb aircraft are probably stuck with AMA membership, since the safety code requires waivers for these aircraft, and since membership is required to get the necessary waivers.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Ya...seems like a perfectly appropriate comparison to the issues we're dealing with now. Right on point!

N410DC

I wonder if Samuel Colt thought the same about his little product.

jchorak

My Feedback: (9)

Seeing what the FAA rolled out as their representation, they generally don't have a clue what we do as modelers and could care less what we think.

franklin_m

I've always believe that flying is a privilege, I just felt that trying to describe equal protection under the law of a privilege might result in some tortured language.

As for FAA telling me directly...no not yet. But if they indeed change the registration and explicitly say that members of AMA can fly above 400', then they are compelling membership in a private dues paying organization to enjoy special privileges in the people's airspace that the unwashed masses do not enjoy. It's very Orwellian I suppose, the Animal Farm quote comes to mind “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

If they say that CBO members can fly above 400', that's better, but only marginally so long as there's but one CBO.

Lastly, AMA did say that they won't certify aircraft of non-members to allow them to comply with PL112-95 section 336 (a)(3) - again, with just one CBO, AMA is already using that to compel membership.

I contacted my Senator's Office yesterday, provided my question to AMA, and their exact response with respect to requiring members for 336 (a)(3) certification. They're reaching out to the appropriate subcommittee and FAA about how that section of the law is being used by the AMA. While I'm hopeful this will be used to clarify and establish a single set of standards for everyone, whether or not CBO members, at this point nothing would surprise me.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I'm pretty sure they have a pretty good idea of what we do, some are even deeply involved in the hobby and are in fact AMA members. The problem is we (the hobby) aren't the only ones who are involved in this. It isn't all about us, and what we do, and what we want, and how this plays out for us only.

Folks continue to miss the huge picture and continue to focus on us, and us alone.

TimJ

And there weren't thousands of jets in the air at the same time carrying hundreds of thousands of passengers.

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

No flamage from me buddy, but there are plenty of people on here who will happily give away right after right under the guise of "safety". The FAA/DOT have gone WAY too far with this registration. It has about a 0% chance of making the NAS safer; which really makes this whole thing comical. Once again I will not be registering.

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

Yup, I agree!

TimJ

Why in the hell would you do something like that? I don't think you realize the ramifications of you doing something like that. I hope you understand that the AMA is NOT using that section to "compel" membership. That is a safety standard set by a CBO who happens to be the AMA at this point. Any other CBO could come along and establish their own set of safety certification for 55+lb aircraft. I'm also sure that one would not want a bunch of 55lb aircraft flying around like the Multi-Rotors. So that rule seems to me to be very reasonable.

Once again, Franklin_M you DON'T have the best interest in mind for model aviation. You only want to fu&* it up for the rest of us.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

As has been mentioned in the past, it's not the AMA's fault there's only one CBO. If you don't like it, start your own CBO. If there were multiple CBOs, I don't see how the FAA would possibly allow each one to have significantly varying difference in flight operations, but I could be wrong there.

jchorak

My Feedback: (9)

Gibson didn't have a clue..........

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Exactly! It's not just about us, many just don't realize this is about commercial operations as well.

franklin_m

I'm ok with on CBO, right until they start using any part of law to compel membership. They're doing that already with section 336 (a)(3), and they've got lots of incentive ($$$$) to start doing it with (a)(2) at some point.

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

How exactly is registration going to make commercial operations safer?

On a completely different note; what do you guys think about allowing BLOS pilots to call in flight plans?

I also saw Tower Hobbies now starting to carry FPV equipment.

franklin_m

I'm interested in the safety of manned aircraft and people on the ground first, second, third .... 50th. Maybe 51st I care about hobby sUAS/UAS. What does concern me is an organization that allows people (CDs) with no formal safety training, certainly no formal aviation safety training, no formal risk management training, heck probably not even an understanding of physics, to waive AMA safety "guidelines." If there was some more discipline in the management of these risks, I might be more supportive.

The fundamental concern that I raised with FAA and my Senator is how is the pilot of a life flight helicopter, a news or police aircraft, a light civil pilot dealing with an emergency, or a military jet on any one of thousands of military training routes supposed to know that "model aircraft" operating in that area are flown by CBO members, and thus enjoy special privilege to be higher than 400', or are being operated by others who are not. The ambiguity of this double standard is very dangerous from a safety perspective, especially when we're expecting the "hobby" operator to have situational awareness of approaching aircraft - when there are no visual acuity standards, no hearing standards, and no annual check of the operator's ability have situational awareness.

skylark-flier

Crispy - bolded is precisely why I asked FAA about it. You're right, changing that number every couple years would be a goat-rope like no other goat-rope in history. HOWEVER, like I said, this is the US Government. I put no level of stupidity past them. However, my main reason for asking wasn't anything like that - it was the simple mechanics of having to change numbers over and over, maybe necessitating a new acft covering every few years to get rid of the old # and put a new one on. Wasn't looking forward to that kind of baloney.

HoundDog - regarding what I put in red, I'm hoping you were being facetious. I've seen FAA documents, and right now exactly which ones they were escapes me, where they specifically state that they don't think many of these sUAS (referring to Christmas presents, I think) will last more than just a few flights and can't envision any sUAS surviving more than a year or so. They've no clue at all!!!! I'm not the only one in the world, I'm sure, that has a fleet of aircraft still flying that are much more than 20 yrs old. Shoot, my oldest still flying (RC plane) is 41, youngest is 4. My oldest still-operational and regularly flying CL plane was built in 1958 and flies every summer.

This is pretty much the general problem, in my view, with this whole registration circle-jerk - Govt has no clue but is responding to the press and their over-hype, through the FAA. The press is simply creating a news sensation (truth has no place anywhere in this) to "sell newspapers" and make $$$$$$$$$. The public is buying it, just like they always do. We're paying the price, just like always.

Yup, a circle-jerk.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Perhaps exercising a little common sense your part would also be helpful.