Are you ready to register your aircraft?
01-12-2016, 10:05 AM
#3751
Yes Crispy, I understand and agree. It's "common sense" from the US Government that I have my issues with. After all, is any of this registration crap "common sense"? How many lives are going to be saved by putting a 10-figure "number" on my plane?
01-12-2016, 10:07 AM
#3752
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's either Kansas or Kentucky that allows you to apply for and purchase a permit to fly rc...once obtained, you can fly in of the state parks or just about anywhere, where it isn't specifically stated that you cannot. From my understanding, they even have their own safety code, registration etc and mirrors the AMA. That being the case, then that would be a CBO too.
01-12-2016, 10:08 AM
#3753
I don't know nor care where they are at with the larger UAS flying though navigable airspace. I assume that will come later though
01-12-2016, 10:24 AM
#3754
I think it's either Kansas or Kentucky that allows you to apply for and purchase a permit to fly rc...once obtained, you can fly in of the state parks or just about anywhere, where it isn't specifically stated that you cannot. From my understanding, they even have their own safety code, registration etc and mirrors the AMA. That being the case, then that would be a CBO too.
01-12-2016, 11:00 AM
#3755
01-12-2016, 11:40 AM
#3757
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Taking this approach only make you look like and anti AMA goon.
01-12-2016, 12:05 PM
#3758
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-12-2016, 12:24 PM
#3760
You said something about calling in a flight plan. That won't happen for a while because we are not flying in navigable airspace. You may be flying BLOS but you are returning to the same point. A flight plan is from point A to point B and a flight plan form point A to point A is nonsensical. This won't happen till we have UAS (not sUAS) flying regularly in the same airspace as full scale aircraft. The first will be the size of giant scale models. but I suppose eventually UAS will include airliners. Actually they probably won't do flight plans till they carry people.
01-12-2016, 12:30 PM
#3761
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Between the real estate tax, personal income tax, state sales tax, and then my favorite, property tax ( I really love paying tax on my cars every year!) this state is tax happy. And they are still looking at bringing tolls back!
01-12-2016, 12:38 PM
#3762
Sorry, your argument is rubbish. The safety record of the AMA is excellent. You seem to be trolling for attention, once again. If you really are concerned about that then, you should work to get every R/C model field on nav charts. Not approach the FAA and/or local representatives.
Taking this approach only make you look like and anti AMA goon.
Taking this approach only make you look like and anti AMA goon.
I am not supportive of getting every AMA field on sectional chart, as that won't be supported by AOPA or other groups, and imposes needless burden on the FAA system as AMA clubs lose fields, add fields, lose them, etc. The AMA's own website isn't even up to date with respective to active fields, of the five within 50nm of my zip code, half of them result in "404" errors when you access the web pages.
I support one set of rules for all non-commercial sUAS/UAS flights nationwide w/o regard for CBO membership. It invites chaos to have multiple numbering systems, multiple operational limits, and multiple certification/qualification systems.
I do not support AMA so long as they use any single part of PL112-95 section 336 to compel membership. They're doing that with section (a)(3), and who's to say they won't do that with other sections in the future? If and when there are other CBOs, then I'm less concerned. Until then though, I will continue to express my concern for the safety of manned aircraft and people on the ground imposed by ambiguous and inconsistent operational rules for non-commercial sUAS/UAS operations.
01-12-2016, 12:39 PM
#3763
i was close, only two off. Happy I guess? Between the real estate tax, personal income tax, state sales tax, and then my favorite, property tax ( I really love paying tax on my cars every year!) this state is tax happy. And they are still looking at bringing tolls back!
Between the real estate tax, personal income tax, state sales tax, and then my favorite, property tax ( I really love paying tax on my cars every year!) this state is tax happy. And they are still looking at bringing tolls back!
01-12-2016, 12:50 PM
#3764
Sorry you feel that way Tim. The AMA's record is what it is because it's incomplete. It does not include any number of events that are part of a credible safety management system data collection effort: non-injury mishaps, AMA rule violations, breaches of flight discipline, near misses, etc.
I am not supportive of getting every AMA field on sectional chart, as that won't be supported by AOPA or other groups, and imposes needless burden on the FAA system as AMA clubs lose fields, add fields, lose them, etc. The AMA's own website isn't even up to date with respective to active fields, of the five within 50nm of my zip code, half of them result in "404" errors when you access the web pages.
I support one set of rules for all non-commercial sUAS/UAS flights nationwide w/o regard for CBO membership. It invites chaos to have multiple numbering systems, multiple operational limits, and multiple certification/qualification systems.
I do not support AMA so long as they use any single part of PL112-95 section 336 to compel membership. They're doing that with section (a)(3), and who's to say they won't do that with other sections in the future? If and when there are other CBOs, then I'm less concerned. Until then though, I will continue to express my concern for the safety of manned aircraft and people on the ground imposed by ambiguous and inconsistent operational rules for non-commercial sUAS/UAS operations.
I am not supportive of getting every AMA field on sectional chart, as that won't be supported by AOPA or other groups, and imposes needless burden on the FAA system as AMA clubs lose fields, add fields, lose them, etc. The AMA's own website isn't even up to date with respective to active fields, of the five within 50nm of my zip code, half of them result in "404" errors when you access the web pages.
I support one set of rules for all non-commercial sUAS/UAS flights nationwide w/o regard for CBO membership. It invites chaos to have multiple numbering systems, multiple operational limits, and multiple certification/qualification systems.
I do not support AMA so long as they use any single part of PL112-95 section 336 to compel membership. They're doing that with section (a)(3), and who's to say they won't do that with other sections in the future? If and when there are other CBOs, then I'm less concerned. Until then though, I will continue to express my concern for the safety of manned aircraft and people on the ground imposed by ambiguous and inconsistent operational rules for non-commercial sUAS/UAS operations.
01-12-2016, 12:52 PM
#3765
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
The 400' AGL limit, and other things one signs up for in registering come directly from "Know Before You Fly" which is a program AMA is a key partner in, which was initiated for the unwashed masses of new drone flyers. I don't doubt AMA was surprised as well as chagrined that it was applied to every modeler when the requirement for registration was announced. I see some irony here: what business did AMA have in making rules for non- AMA members anyway?
01-12-2016, 01:05 PM
#3766
Rumley that is beginning to &!$$ me off. The know before you fly is recent and in fact supported by the AMA, the 400 foot limit goes back to 81 when the AMA and FAA agreed to this many, many years ago. The AMA has been working with Washington on altitude limits well back in the 70's..
The fact is you and Franklin know nothing but you pretend to be experts. To say the AMA has done nothing, has accomplished nothing just shows your complete and disgusting ignorance!
The fact is you and Franklin know nothing but you pretend to be experts. To say the AMA has done nothing, has accomplished nothing just shows your complete and disgusting ignorance!
01-12-2016, 01:13 PM
#3767
Sorry you feel that way Tim. The AMA's record is what it is because it's incomplete. It does not include any number of events that are part of a credible safety management system data collection effort: non-injury mishaps, AMA rule violations, breaches of flight discipline, near misses, etc.
Have you put together any plans to implement such a program complete with startup and on-going cost estimates? You already complain about the cost of AMA dues. I'm curious to how much it would cost to create and maintain such a program within the AMA or even FAA specifically for model aviation.
I am not supportive of getting every AMA field on sectional chart, as that won't be supported by AOPA or other groups, and imposes needless burden on the FAA system as AMA clubs lose fields, add fields, lose them, etc. The AMA's own website isn't even up to date with respective to active fields, of the five within 50nm of my zip code, half of them result in "404" errors when you access the web pages.
I support one set of rules for all non-commercial sUAS/UAS flights nationwide w/o regard for CBO membership. It invites chaos to have multiple numbering systems, multiple operational limits, and multiple certification/qualification systems.
I do not support AMA so long as they use any single part of PL112-95 section 336 to compel membership. They're doing that with section (a)(3), and who's to say they won't do that with other sections in the future? If and when there are other CBOs, then I'm less concerned. Until then though, I will continue to express my concern for the safety of manned aircraft and people on the ground imposed by ambiguous and inconsistent operational rules for non-commercial sUAS/UAS operations.
Have you put together any plans to implement such a program complete with startup and on-going cost estimates? You already complain about the cost of AMA dues. I'm curious to how much it would cost to create and maintain such a program within the AMA or even FAA specifically for model aviation.
I am not supportive of getting every AMA field on sectional chart, as that won't be supported by AOPA or other groups, and imposes needless burden on the FAA system as AMA clubs lose fields, add fields, lose them, etc. The AMA's own website isn't even up to date with respective to active fields, of the five within 50nm of my zip code, half of them result in "404" errors when you access the web pages.
I support one set of rules for all non-commercial sUAS/UAS flights nationwide w/o regard for CBO membership. It invites chaos to have multiple numbering systems, multiple operational limits, and multiple certification/qualification systems.
I do not support AMA so long as they use any single part of PL112-95 section 336 to compel membership. They're doing that with section (a)(3), and who's to say they won't do that with other sections in the future? If and when there are other CBOs, then I'm less concerned. Until then though, I will continue to express my concern for the safety of manned aircraft and people on the ground imposed by ambiguous and inconsistent operational rules for non-commercial sUAS/UAS operations.
01-12-2016, 01:47 PM
#3768
Any occurrences between full scale and model airplanes greater than zero indicates the model aircraft are not avoiding full scale aircraft. As Bob Brown said just this weekend, "even if that means putting your model in the dirt."
01-12-2016, 01:52 PM
#3769
Rumley that is beginning to &!$$ me off. The know before you fly is recent and in fact supported by the AMA, the 400 foot limit goes back to 81 when the AMA and FAA agreed to this many, many years ago. The AMA has been working with Washington on altitude limits well back in the 70's..
The fact is you and Franklin know nothing but you pretend to be experts. To say the AMA has done nothing, has accomplished nothing just shows your complete and disgusting ignorance!
The fact is you and Franklin know nothing but you pretend to be experts. To say the AMA has done nothing, has accomplished nothing just shows your complete and disgusting ignorance!
01-12-2016, 01:54 PM
#3771
[QUOTE=Chris P. Bacon;12160534]Sorry you feel that way Tim. The AMA's record is what it is because it's incomplete. It does not include any number of events that are part of a credible safety management system data collection effort: non-injury mishaps, AMA rule violations, breaches of flight discipline, near misses, etc.
Have you put together any plans to implement such a program complete with startup and on-going cost estimates? You already complain about the cost of AMA dues. I'm curious to how much it would cost to create and maintain such a program within the AMA or even FAA specifically for model aviation. /QUOTE]
If and when AMA every shows an interest, I'm happy to set it up for them. I have no problem paying dues if it were used toward something like this. What I don't support is some of the other uses of our membership dues (like the PR firm that's inept).
Have you put together any plans to implement such a program complete with startup and on-going cost estimates? You already complain about the cost of AMA dues. I'm curious to how much it would cost to create and maintain such a program within the AMA or even FAA specifically for model aviation. /QUOTE]
If and when AMA every shows an interest, I'm happy to set it up for them. I have no problem paying dues if it were used toward something like this. What I don't support is some of the other uses of our membership dues (like the PR firm that's inept).
01-12-2016, 01:56 PM
#3772
Speaking of that by the way, you stated the other day something about membership being required in the Ultralight CBO to do things. I asked for a citation and you still haven't provided one...perhaps its because you didn't know what you were talking about?
01-12-2016, 01:58 PM
#3773
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumley that is beginning to &!$$ me off. The know before you fly is recent and in fact supported by the AMA, the 400 foot limit goes back to 81 when the AMA and FAA agreed to this many, many years ago. The AMA has been working with Washington on altitude limits well back in the 70's..
The fact is you and Franklin know nothing but you pretend to be experts. To say the AMA has done nothing, has accomplished nothing just shows your complete and disgusting ignorance!
The fact is you and Franklin know nothing but you pretend to be experts. To say the AMA has done nothing, has accomplished nothing just shows your complete and disgusting ignorance!
I should have consulted an expert first, but maybe things can be set straight after the fact. So, what has AMA accomplished with their political/legal wrangling with FAA that ensued from the sUAS ARC, which AMA participated in ostensibly for the sole purpose of providing expert advice as to what a model aircraft is?
01-12-2016, 02:16 PM
#3774
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You said something about calling in a flight plan. That won't happen for a while because we are not flying in navigable airspace. You may be flying BLOS but you are returning to the same point. A flight plan is from point A to point B and a flight plan form point A to point A is nonsensical. This won't happen till we have UAS (not sUAS) flying regularly in the same airspace as full scale aircraft. The first will be the size of giant scale models. but I suppose eventually UAS will include airliners. Actually they probably won't do flight plans till they carry people.
01-12-2016, 02:26 PM
#3775
[QUOTE=franklin_m;12160570]
Just to confirm, you have no idea how much it would cost to implement and maintain such a program?
I'd also be interested in the benefit such a program would provide. If the FAA thought it was that important they'd already be doing it, right?
Sorry you feel that way Tim. The AMA's record is what it is because it's incomplete. It does not include any number of events that are part of a credible safety management system data collection effort: non-injury mishaps, AMA rule violations, breaches of flight discipline, near misses, etc.
Have you put together any plans to implement such a program complete with startup and on-going cost estimates? You already complain about the cost of AMA dues. I'm curious to how much it would cost to create and maintain such a program within the AMA or even FAA specifically for model aviation. /QUOTE]
If and when AMA every shows an interest, I'm happy to set it up for them. I have no problem paying dues if it were used toward something like this. What I don't support is some of the other uses of our membership dues (like the PR firm that's inept).
Have you put together any plans to implement such a program complete with startup and on-going cost estimates? You already complain about the cost of AMA dues. I'm curious to how much it would cost to create and maintain such a program within the AMA or even FAA specifically for model aviation. /QUOTE]
If and when AMA every shows an interest, I'm happy to set it up for them. I have no problem paying dues if it were used toward something like this. What I don't support is some of the other uses of our membership dues (like the PR firm that's inept).
I'd also be interested in the benefit such a program would provide. If the FAA thought it was that important they'd already be doing it, right?